(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Water resources development project : Park River local protection; Connecticut River Basin, Hartford, Connecticut : design memeorandum no. 2: phase I: plan formulation"

Boston pudiic t-iorafy 
Boston. MA 02116 



ftaioc Gnvp.fi ill lli! 



I [Jfivttv W : J, i-iw ;J '-*■■■ '■'■ 



WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 

PARK RIVER 
LOCAL PROTECTION 

CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN 
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 

DESIGN MEMORANDUM NO. 2 

PHASE I 
PLAN FORMULATION 





DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 
NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENOINEERS 
WALTHAM, MASS. 



MARCH 1973 






DAEN-CWP-E (30 Mar 73) 3rd Ind 

SUBJECT: Park River Local Protection, Connecticut River Basin, 

Hartford, Conn. Design Memorandum No. 2, Phase I- Plan 

Formulation 

DA, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. C. 20314 16 May 74 

TO: Division Engineer, New England, ATTN: NEDED-R 

Approved. 

FOR THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS: 



Incl wd 





i^ 



x^^ 1 



(^^T^.UM REISLEI 

Chief, Planning Division 
Directorate of Civil Works 
Atlantic 



11 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/waterresourcesdevOOunit 



NEDED-R(30 Mar 73) 2nd Ind (cont'd) 12 April 1974 

SUBJECT: Park River Local Protection, Connecticut River Basin, 

Hartford, Conn., Design Memorandum No. 2, Phase I - 

Plan Formulation 

8. Par. l.f. - Underpinning of Buildings 

The estimated $75, 000 for underpinning and protection of buildings 
during construction of the auxiliary conduit appears justified based on 
information available at present. Possible damage to buildings as a 
result of the construction works for causes other than the effects of 
lowering the water table has been studied. The anticipated construction 
procedures are sheeted trench construction, tunneling in earth, and 
tunneling in rock. Present indications are that earth tunneling will be 
through glacial till and that all nearby buildings are founded on till. 
Three buildings appear close enough to the proposed alignment of the 
auxiliary conduit to require protection. Settlement monitoring of the 
existing structures including the piers of the highway overpass will be 
provided. With reasonable construction care, it is expected that bracing 
of the overpass piers will not be required or that damage will not occur 
to buildings. 

9. Review and approval of the above comments are requested. 
FOR THE DIVISION ENGINEER: 



WUy^> 




1 Incl MEYER S. SLOTKIN 

Incl 1 wd Acting Chief, Engineering Division 

Added: 

2. as 



10 



NEDED-R(30 Mar 73) 2nd Ind (contM) 12 April 1974 

SUBJECT: Park River Local Protection, Connecticut River Basin, 

Hartford, Conn, , Design Memorandum No, 2, Phase I - 

Plan Formulation 

Final use will be determined by additional meetings and coordination with 
local interests during the detailed design stage. 

6 . Par, Id. - Removal and Replac e ment of Utilities, 

The estimated cost of $60, 000 shown on page B-8 is for removal and 
replacement of existing utilities which are integral parts of the excavation 
works required for construction of the conduit sections at the roadway 
crossings. The $900, 000 and $60, 000 shown on page B-9 are estimated 
costs for removal and replacement of utilities, pavements and sidewalks 
which are integral parts of the open excavation works required for con- 
struction of the auxiliary conduit along the roadways, EM 1120-2-101, 
Par, l-84g. , states that all changes in public utilities must be made and 
paid for by local interests "except those parts which are to pass beneath, 
through, or over the project structure and which, if ruptured would cause 
adverse effects to the project structures, " "Such excepted parts will be 
designed and constructed at Federal cost to avoid damage to project struc- 
tures or loss of protection, " 

7, Par, 1, e. - Reimbursement A greement 



By letter dated 9 May 1972, the Greater Hartford Flood Commission 
(GHFC) requested "Certification of Work Performed" under paragraph 8 
of the reimbursement agreement for accomplishment of certain flood 
protection work related to the authorized Park River project. The GHFC 
realizes that the sum of $128, 300 for the pilot channel work is not eligible 
for reimbursement because the work was done prior to the formal agree- 
ment. However, after the formal agreement was signed on 1 July 1969, 
the work accomplished by contract consisted of the removal of trees within 
the area to be occupied by the proposed flood control box-conduit. The 
cost for this work is $13, 100, 

The matter of certification and reimbursement for removal of the 
trees was discussed oh 23 August 1972 with Mr. Robert J. Robcrtory, 
Office of General Counsel, OCE. At that time it was not certain whether 
the cost for removal of trees accomplished as part of the work described 
in the agreement is reimbursable since the agreement does not provide for 
reimbursement for partial performance. However, when construction funds 
are available and the project is undertaken, the matter will be presented 
in detail to OCE for final determination. This Information was transmitted 
by letter dated 23 August 1972 to the GHFC. 



9 



# 



NEDED-R(30 Mar 73) 2nd Ind (cont'd) 12 April 1974 

SUBJECT: Park River Local Protection, Connecticut River Basin, 

Hartford, Conn. , Design Memorandum No, 2, Phase I - 

Plan Formulation 

Local dissatisfaction could easily focus on the Corps for ignoring these 
consequences in its planning. Demands for flood protection would be likely, 
adding to the expense of the project. Finally, increased susceptibility to 
flooding may lower real estate and rental values and hasten changes in the 
composition of the neighborhood. 

Inclosed are 20 copies of Plate 2-5 showing the revised location of the 
headwall and conduit extension (Section 9). This change in the scope of 
work decreases the cost of the Section 9 conduit extension and the total 
project cost by an estimated $2, 4 million. Subsequent to approval, re- 
visions to the project plan and detailed costs will be presented in the 
Phase II - Project Design, General Design Memorandum. 

4. Par. 1 . b. - Riversi de Pumpin g Station 

Comments concerning the proposed Riverside pumping station are 
further discussed in 2nd Indorsement dated 15 November 1973 to HQDA 
(DAEN-CWE-B), and 3rd Indorsement dated 3 January 1974 to NEDED-W, 
As noted in the 3rd Indorsement, additional information determining the 
need and size of the pumping station will be provided in the Phase II - 
General Design Memorandum. Data concerning the Armory Pumping 
Station also will be included. 

~ >a Par. 1. c. Parking Fa cilities 

Benefits claimed for the parking facilities were derived by the same 
approach as was used in the authorizing document. The current results 
represent an increase of 43% over the $0. 70 per square foot (1965 price 
level) used in that document. The $0 4 70 was a net benefit, the gross 
being $1. 14 per square foot including amortization, maintenance and 
policing. A 43% increase for the price level during the period 1965-1973 
is believed to be conservative. 

Alternatives to the proposed parking over the Park River conduit 
were discussed in general in Paragraph 28 of the Phase I report, Public 
Use and Environmental Aspects. As noted, the final design of the conduit 
and the final cross -sections of the right-of-way with the conduit ill place 
are limiting factors in determining the final use for th< i s. Parking 

facilities are urgently needed in the areas as described on page 48 of the 
>orti The City of Hartford is currently using part of the area over the 
;ting conduit for parking as well areas tox public use activities^ 



NEDED-RJ30 Mar 73} 2nd Ind (cont'd) 12 April 1974 

SUBJECT: Park River Local Protection, Connecticut River Basin, 

Hartford, Conn, , Design Memorandum No. 2, Phase I - 

Plan Formulation 

originally proposed or revised conduit extension (Section 9) due to the 
rarity of the event, the flood control improvements would prevent flooding 
and damages to the heavily traveled Farmington Avenue roadway and to 
the developed urban properties along the north side of Farmington Avenue. 
The major benefits supporting the need for Section 9 and for providing the 
285-foot conduit extension as an integral part of the project are based 
primarily on the elimination of the adverse social and environmental ef- 
fects that would be propagated by the construction of the headwall on the 
south side of Farmington Avenue. 

The social and economic benefits of the revised extension are best 
displayed by considering the consequences of going ahead with the authorized 
plan. In addition to the discussion included in Section I, Plan Formulation, 
on pages 26 through 29 of the report, the construction of the headwall along 
the south side of Farmington Avenue has two other major adverse effects. 
First, a headwall approximately 4 to 4-1/2 feet above ground extending 
for an entire city block would be required for closure. This headwall 
would not only detract from the general appearance of the area but more 
importantly would contribute to a "walled-in" concrete atmosphere in an 
urban setting which has little green or open space. Second, as indicated 
in the report, during flood conditions the headwall would function as a dam, 
increasing the height of flood waters which affect Farmington Avenue it- 
self and the housing units immediately north of Farmington Aveaue. The 
consequences of such flooding are important because of the large numbers 
of persons who use Farmington Avenue as an access route. On a typical 
average day over 1, 600 cars travel along Farmington Avenue during the 
peak hours, once in the morning and again in the evening. Bus lines on 
Farmington Avenue link the areas of West Hartford Center, Webster Hill, 
Albany Place, Unionville and Bishop's Corner to the center of Hartford. 
Bus service is available every 10 minutes in each direction on Farmington 
Avenue. Higher flood waters would disrupt this traffic, interfering with 
the every-day economic and social activities of a large number of people. 

In addition, the residents in the area already perceive their neigh- 
borhood as one threatened by change. Failure to provide equal protection 
to both sides of Farmington Avenue is likely to increase tensions in the 
area and disturb community relations. The presence of a structure winch 
visibly protects one side of the street while the other side becomes more 
susceptible to flooding will undoubtedly result in angry questions. 



NEDED-R(30 Mar 73) 2nd Ind (cont'd) 12 April 1974 

? SUBJECT: Park River Local Protection, Connecticut River Basin, 
Hartford, Conn. , Design Memorandum No, 2, Phase I - 
Plan Formulation 

the recommended plan affords the optimum enhancement of the environ- 
ment, social well-being and economic growth in the metropolitan Hart- 
ford areas. 

Experienced flood losses, updated potential flood damages and the 
major intangible benefits to be realized by construction of the recom- 
mended plan are stated in Section N of the report. Since the total 
tangible flood control benefits exceed the total project costs, no further 
analysis is required, 

3, Par, l.a, Far mington Avenue Con duit Extension 



At the request of Hartford City officials, a meeting was held in Hart- 
ford on 1 November 1973 to discuss the conduit extension (Section 9). 
The Deputy Mayor of Hartford stated that local ecological and neighbor- 
hood associations including the West End Civic Group, are opposed to plans 
which eliminate the large ox-bow turn of the North Branch Park River and 
alter the adjacent land from its present natural condition. All land abutting 
the river is privately owned but the public uses it for nature walks and aes- 
thetic values as it is one of the few natural areas remaining in this densely 
urbanized city, Hartford City officials again expressed the need for ex- 
tending the conduit north of Farmington Avenue and requested a solution to 
resolve the flood problem and to satisfy other local interests, 

Coincidentally, topographic field survey maps prepared by this office 
for project detailed design were complete at this time providing detailed 
information not available during the preparation of the Phase I - Plan 
Formulation Report, A study of the recently completed topographic maps 
including contours at one-foot intervals revealed that the headwall for 
Section 9 could meet high ground at a site approximately 135 feet north 
of the Farmington Avenue Bridge, This site decreases the length of con- 
duit Section 9 from 935 feet to about 285 feet as measured from the up- 
stream end of the existing conduit Section 8, Local officials indicated 
that the new location for the headwall is favorable, meets with their de- 
sires and satisfies the needs of local ecological and environmental groups. 

The construction of the Farmington Avenue conduit extension as re- 
vised and noted above, is recommended to provide local protection works 
with emphasis Oil the engineering integrity and feasibility of the improve- 
ments. Although an incremental economic analysis would ttot support the 



NEDED-R(30 March 73) 2nd Ind 

I SUBJECT: Park River Local Protection, Connecticut River Basin, 
Hartford, Conn. , Design Memorandum No. 2, Phase I - 
Plan Formulation 

DA, NED, CE, Waltham, Mass. 02154 12 April 1974 

TO: HQDA (DAEN-CWP-E) WASH DC 20314 

1. Com merits discussed below are noted with reference to subparagraphs 
of the 1st Indorsement. 

2. Par, l.a. - Park Street Auxiliary Conduit 

The Park Street auxiliary flood control conduit is not a separable 
element of the Park River Local Protection Project. It is included as an 
integral part of the overall system to provide a flood control project com- 
plete within itself as well as to assure the engineering integrity of the 
flood control works and to provide the required degree of protection for 
a major urban area. 

As stated in EM 1120-2-101, Project Formulation, paragraph l-77b: 
"Because of the type of flood hazard involved, flood control projects for 
urban areas in general will be designed to provide protection against the 
standard project flood whenever that extent of protection can be provided 
within the limits of cost justified by the tangible and intangible benefits. " 

The center of the Capital City of one of the country's most urbanized 
states definitely is an urban area which meets this criterion. It is an 
area that is particularly flood prone due to its low situation and unique 
topography of the surrounding land. The hazard of a flood exceeding the 
capacity of the existing and proposed twin-box conduits and paralyzing 
the center of an SMSA of 664, 000 people, especially its transportation 
systems, is clearly evident and should not be tolerated. Until the city 
center and surrounding lands are secure from flooding, plans for future 
improvements and growth will be restricted by the threat of flooding and 
this threat will increase as development in the outlying areas increases 
the runoff to the Park River. Construction of the twin-box conduit ex- 
tensions without the auxiliary conduit would present a false sense of 
security to an area still susceptible to larger floods. 

The high degree of protection and dependability provided by com- 
pleting the recommended twin-box conduit extensions and the auxiliary 
conduit is considered the most practical and integrated solution for the 
flood problem in Hartford. In comparison with alternatives investigated, 



DAEN-CWP-E 

SUBJECT: Park River Local Protection, Connecticut River Basin, Hartford, 

Connecticut, Design Memorandum No. 2., Phase I - Plan Formulation 

2. Revised pages for the subject report should be provided OCE where necessary. 

3. Comments of the Board of Engineers for River and Harbors is inclosed for 
information. 



FOR THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS: 



1 Incl 

As stated 



FREDERICK F. IRVING \ 
Colonel, Corps of Engineers 
Assistant Director of Civil/Works 

for Atlantic Divisions 



I 



• 



I 

DAEN-CWP-E (30 Mar 73) 1st Ind 

SUBJECT: Park River Local Protection, Connecticut River Basin, Hartford, 

Connecticut, Design Memorandum No. 2, Phase I - Plan 

Formulation 

DA, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. C. 20314 16 Jul 1973 

TO: Division Engineer, New England 

1. The subject report is approved subject to the following comments: 

a. Each separable element of the flood control plan must be independently 
justified unless it can be demonstrated that the elements are not separable 
and act as a system to assure the engineering integrity of the works and to 
provide the required degree of protection. This applies to the Park Street 
auxiliary conduit and the Farmington Bridge conduit extension. Revised 
pages are requested demonstrating incremental justification or supporting 
the need for these items as an integral part of the project. 

b. The economics of the proposed Riverside pumping station should be 
verified. Reference paragraph 3 of DAEN-CWE-B, 1st Indorsement dated 

12 April 1973 to NEDED-W, 16 February 1973, Park River, Connecticut, DM 
No. 1 Hydrology. 

c. Benefits claimed for the parking facilities should be net benefits. 
The alternatives to proposed parking should be ascertained. 

d. On pages B-8 and B-9, $60, 000 for removal and replacement of 
utilities; $900, 000 for removal and replacement of waterlines, sewer 
lines, drainage facilities and utilities; and $60, 000 for replacement of 
highway pavement and sidewalks are shown as Federal costs. Normally 
these are considered to be non-Federal costs. What are the reasons for 
this apparent departure from standard practice? 

e. A reimbursement agreement under Section 215 of PL 90-483 was 
signed with the Greater Hartford Flood Commission on 1 July 1969 to reim- 
burse the City for work done that Is an integral part of the Federal project. 
A pilot channel completed by the Commission at a cost of $128, 3 00 is not 
eligible for reimbursement because it was done prior to the formal agreement. 
One of the conditions of the agreement states that work shall be undertaken and 
completed within 3 years of date signed. Therefore, no reimbursement will 
be made under this agreement since no work has been accomplished or started. 

f. Tii'' $75,000 item for underpinning and protection <>f buildings appears 

to be Low. Considering the shallow cover over the tunnel, settlement monitoring 
of the existing structures should be provided and the estimate should be Increase <1 
to provide for the costs of corrective measures. 




REPLY TO 
ATTENTION OF 

NEDED-R 



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

424 TRAPELO ROAD 

WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02154 



30 March 1973 



SUBJECT: Park River Local Protection, Connecticut River Basin, 
Hartford, Connecticut, Design Memorandum No. 2, 
Phase I - Plan Formulation 



HQDA (DAEN-CWP-E) 
WASH DC 20314 



1. In accordance with ER 1110-2-1150, there is submitted for re- 
view and approval Design Memorandum No. 2, Phase I - Plan For- 
mulation, for the Park River Local Protection, Connecticut River 
Basin, Hartford, Connecticut. 

2. This memorandum reflects modifications and changes developed 
during the reassessment of the authorized Park River Local Protec- 
tion Project. A description of departures and the reason for changes 
are outlined in the text of the report. 

3. Advance copies of the Phase I - Plan Formulation report including 
the Environmental Statement dated 16 July 1971 have been reviewed 

by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Their letter of comment 
dated 14 March 1973 is included in Appendix A as Exhibit 1. 

4. A copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement dated i 6 July 
1971 filed with the President's Council on Environmental Quality on 

1 September 1971, is included as an attachment to the report. Section 
K of this memorandum presents environmental data available during 
preparation of this report. 

5. Section Q of this memorandum presents the Statement of Findings 
prepared in accordance with EC 1105-2-501 dated 17 April 1972. 

6. It is recommended that the project plan providing local flood pro- 
tection for the city of Hartford be approved as the basis for preparation 



4 



NEDED-R 30 March 1973 

SUBJECT: Park River Local Protection, Connecticut River Basin, 

Hartford, Connecticut, Design Memorandum No. 2, 

Phase I - Plan Formulation 

of the Phase II • General Design Memorandum, It is further recom- 
mended that the departures from the project document of extending 
the conduit and headwall north of Farmington Avenue on the North 
Branch Park River and of completing the Armory Pumping Station be 
approved. 



FOR THE DIVISION ENGINEER: 



JLuX-w-* 



Incl(20 cys) yrfOHN WM. LESLIE 

as (Chief, Engineering Division 



WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 

PARK RIVER LOCAL PROTECTION 
CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN 
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 

DESIGN MEMORANDA INDEX 



Anticipated 

Submission Date Date 

Number Title Date Submitted Approved 



1 Hydrology 16 Feb 73 

2 GDM - Phase I - Plan 

Formulation 30 Mar 73 

2 GDM - Phase II - Project 

Design, Site Geology & 
Interior Drainage 

Part I - Box Conduit Mar 74 

Part II - Auxiliary 

Conduit Apr 75 

3 Hydraulic Analysis Jun 74 

4 Concrete Materials Apr 74 

5 Embankment &c Foun- 

dations 
Part I - Box Conduit Jun 74 

Part II - Auxiliary 

Conduit Aug 75 

6 Pumping Station Sep 74 

7 Detailed Design of Struc- 

tur Sep 74 



WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 

PARK RIVER LOCAL PROTECTION 
CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN 
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 



DESIGN MEMORANDUM NO. 2 

PHASE I 
PLAN FORMULATION 



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 

MARCH 1973 



' 



WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 

PARK RIVER LOCAL PROTECTION 

CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN 

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 

DESIGN MEMORANDUM NO. 2 
PHASE I - PLAN FORMULATION 

CONTENTS 

Paragraph Subject Page No 

A. PERTINENT DATA 1 

B. INTRODUCTION 5 

1. Purpose 5 

2. Scope 5 

C. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION 5 

3. Authorization 5 

4. Assurances 5 

D. EXISTING FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS 6 

5. Corps of Engineers 6 

6. Department of Agriculture 9 

7. Non-Federal Agencies * u 

E. AUTHORIZED PLAN U 

8. Desc ription 1 1 

9. Lands and Damages 12 
10. Relocations 12 

F. CURRENT NEEDS AND DEVELOPMENT 
OBJECTIVES 12 

1 1. Flood Control ' 2 



Page 


No. 


15 




15 




19 




20 





Paragraph Subject 

G. ALTERNATIVES 

12. Considered Improvements 

13. Discussion 

14. Conclusions 

H. INVESTIGATIONS 21 

15. Previous Investigations 21 

16. Post-Authorization Investigations 22 

17. Future Investigations 24 

I. PLAN FORMULATION 24 

18. General 24 

19. Conduit Extensions 25 

20. Auxiliary Conduit 29 

21. Pumping Stations 32 

22. Project Formulation 34 

J. COORDINATION 3 5 

23. Coordination With Other Agencies 3 5 

24. Summary of Views 3 5 

25. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 36 

K. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 36 

26. Environmental Characteristics 36 

27. Project Impact 37 

28. Public Use and Environmental Aspects 38 

29. Environmental Impact Statement 39 

L. PROJECT PLAN 39 

30. General 39 

31. Conduit Extensions 39 

32. Junction Structure 40 

33. North Branch Headwall and Dike 40 



li 



Paragraph Subject Page No . 

L. PROJECT PLAN (Cont'd) 

34. Auxiliary Conduit 40 

35. Riverside Pumping Station 40 

36. Armory Pumping Station 40 

37. Lands and Damages 41 

38. Relocations 41 

M. COST ESTIMATES 41 

39. First Costs 41 

40. Annual Charges 42 

41. Cost Apportionment 42 

42. Comparison of Estimates 43 

N. BENEFITS 45 

43. General 45 

44. Land Use 45 

45. Flood Losses 4b 

46. Benefits 47 

47. Redevelopment Benefits 48 

48. Summary of Benefits 50 

49. Economic Analysis 50 

O. LOCAL COOPERATION 51 

50. General Si 

51. Local Assurances 51 

52. Measures by Local Interests 52 

53. Views of Local Interests 53 

54. Non-Federal Costs 53 

P. DEPARTURES 

55. Departures 

56. Reasons for Departures 



Q. STATEMENT OF FINDF. 
R. RECOMMENDATION 
57. Treatment Recommended 

iii 



LIST OF TABLES 

Table Subject Page No. 

1. Auxiliary Conduit Alternative Sizes; Sum- 
mary of Costs and Benefits 31 

2. Summary of Costs and Annual Charges 42 

3. Comparison of Estimates 44 

4. Summary of Costs and Benefits 50 

LIST OF PLATES 
Plate No. Title 



2-1 Basin Map - Park River Basin 

2-2 Modified Plan 

2-3 Profiles 

2-4 Detail Sheet No. 1 

2-5 Detail Sheet No. 2 

2-6 Plan, Profile and Sections 

APPENDICES 

A Letters of Comment and Concurrence 

B Project Cost and Estimates 

ATTACHMENT 
Environmental Statement 



IV 



WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 



PURPOSE 



PARK RIVER LOCAL PROTECTION 
CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN 
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 

A. PERTINENT DATA 



Flood Control 



LOCATION 



State 
County- 
City 
River 

River Basin 



Connecticut 

Hartford 

Hartford 

Park River & North and South 

Branch Park River 

Connecticut 



PARK RIVER DRAINAGE AREAS 

Park River at the Mouth 
North Branch Park River 
South Branch Park River 



78. 7 Square Miles 
27. 7 Square Miles 
47. Square Miles 



RECORD OF MAJOR FLOODS 



Year 

1936 
1938 
1938 
1955 
1955 



Month 

March 

January 

September 

August 

October 



Peak Discharge, c. f. s. 

5, 400 
5, 650 
5, 320 
14, 000 
6,420 



*Gage at Riverside St. on Park River about 600 feet below junction of 
North and South Branches. 

AREAS 



Subject to flooding, Acres 
Inundated 1955 flood of record, 

Acres 
Properties protected 



3, 000 

2, 300 

Industrial, commercial, resi' 

denti.il and publi< 



TWIN-RECTANGULAR BOX CONDUIT 



( 



Material 



Reinforced Concrete 









Length 


Half Se 


ction 


Conduit Sect 


ions 




in Feet 


Width 


Height 


Existing (12, 


743 


ft): 








Original ( 


1944) 


5, 600 


30 ! -0" 


19'-4" 


Section 1 






1,213 


34'-0 M 


26'-6 M 


Section 3 






1,710 


34'-0 n 


26*-6" 


Section 6 






1,460 


36'-0" 


27*-6" 


Section 8 






2, 760 


22 , -0" 


25*-0" 


Proposed (4, 


651 


ft): 








Section 2 






1, 232 


34'-0" 


26 , -6 M 


Section 4 






1,337 


34'-0" 


26'-6" 


Section 5 






103 


36'-0" 


27'-6 M 


Section 7 






1,044 


22'-0" 


25'-0" 


Section 9 






935 


22'-0" 


25*-0" 


AUXILIARY 


CONDUIT 









Length, feet 
Size, Inside Dia. 
Material 



9,100 

22'-0" 

Reinforced Concrete 



CONDUIT CAPACITIES 



North Branch (Sections 7, 8, & 9) 
Normal Flow Control 
System Capacity Portion 

South Branch (Sections 5 & 6) 
Normal Flow Control 
System Capacity Portion 

Park River (Sections 1,2,3 & 4, plus 
original 5, 600 ft. length) 

Auxiliary Conduit (22 ft. dia. ) 



10, 000 CFS 
7, 200 CFS 



22, 000 CFS 
16, 600 CFS 



18, 000 CFS 
5,800 CFS 



♦ 



SYSTEM DESIGN CAPACITY (Conn. River Stage of 30 ft. MSL) 



Park River Conduit 
Auxiliary Conduit 
Total 



18, 000 CFS 

5, 800 CFS 

23, 800 CFS 



HEADWALLS 



South Branch (Existing): 
Elevation 
Freeboard 
Ponding Level 
Material 



54. 5 MSL 

2. 5 ft 
52. MSL 
Reinforced Concrete 



North Branch: 
Elevation 
Freeboard 
Ponding level 
Material 



54. 5 MSL 

2. 5 ft 
52. MSL 
Reinforced Concrete 

& Earth Dike 



RIVERSIDE PUMPING STATION 

Location 

Capacity, cfs 

Area Controlled, Acres 

Runoff Controlled, inches per hr 

ARMORY PUMPING STATION 



Riverside Street by Conduit 

Section 4 
180 
171 

1 



Location 

Capacity, cfs 
Constructed by Others: 

Substructure, Approx. Size 

Sluice Gates, each 

Flap Gate, each 

Discharge Conduit 

Gravity Conduit 
Sluice Gates, each 
Pumps, each 

Superstructure, Approx. Size 
( L-shape) 



State Armory by Conduit 

Section 1 
170 

70' x 90' 

4 

1 

7' wide x 7 ' high 

8' wide x 7' high 

2 

3 

50' x 57'-6" 



LANDS AND DAMAGES 



Lands Previously Acquired in Fee 
Permanent Easement 
Temporary Easement 
Building 

PRINCIPAL QUANTITIES 

Excavation, General 

Excavation, Rock 

Embankment and Fill 

Stone Protection 

Concrete 

Driving Piles 

Steel Sheet Piling 

Tunnel Support Steel 

Rock Bolts 

Steel Lagging 

Liner Plate -tunnel in earth 

Drainage Facilities 

Seeded Topsoil 

Pumping Stations (2) 



9. 5 acres 
12 
24 

Two level brick garage 



286, 000 c. y. 
215,800 c. y. 
368, 000 c. y. 
9, 000 c. y. 
171, 000 c e y. 
100, 000 If, 
100, 000 s.f. 
6, 000, 000 lbs. 
25, 000 1. f. 
40,000 l,f. 
1, 100, 000 lbs. 
1 job 
20, 000 s. y. 
1 job 



ESTIMA T ED PROJECT COSTS (1973 Price Level) 



Lands and Damages 

Relocations 

Pumping Stations 

Conduit Extension 

Auxiliary Conduit 

Engineering and Design 

Supervision and Administration 

Total First Cost 



$ 1,100,000 

500, 000 

1,400, 000 

17, 500, 000 

25, 300, 000 

3, 900, 000 

3, 300, 000 

$ 53, 000, 000 



COST APPORTIONMENT 



Federal 
Non-Federal 



51,400, 000 
1, 600, 000 



ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

Annual Benefits $ 2, 948, 000 

Annual Costs 1,973,000 

Benefit-Cost Ratio 1. 5 to 1 

CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 3 Years 

B. INTRODUCTION 

1. PURPOSE. - The purpose of this memorandum is to furnish and 
present an objective reassessment of the authorized Park River Local 
Protection Project and to either reaffirm the project as authorized, 

or to reformulate the project plan or parts thereof as required to meet 
changed conditions. This document further refines and builds on the 
basic planning decisions accomplished during the authorization process 
and serves as a basis for additional planning and construction of the 
authorized project. 

2. SCOPE. - This memorandum covers the entire project including 
general data on the components, functions, costs and benefits of the 
local protection works, as well as deviations from the authorized plan 
dictated by changed conditions and criteria since project authorization. 
The data contained herein will be supplemented and expanded by the 
Phase II-Project Design, General Design Memorandum and by subse- 
quent feature design memoranda as required. 

C. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION 



3. AUTHORIZATION . - The Park River Local Protection Project was 
authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-483, dated 
August 13, 1968, which reads in part as follows: 

"The project for flood protection on Park River, Con- 
necticut is hereby authorized substantially in accordance 
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in 
Senate Document Numbered 43, Ninetieth Congress, at 
an estimated cost of $30, 300, 000. " 

4. ASSURANCES. - The Park River Local Protection Project in 
Hartford, Connecticut, comprises conduit construction and provision 

of pumping and drainage facilities to supplement the existing Park River 
conduit for flood control. Construction of the authorized project was 
recommended provided that, prior to construction, local 11 



assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will: 

a. Provide, without cost to the United States, all lands, 
easements, and rights-of-way required for construction 
and operation of the works, including lands for pumping 
stations and spoil disposal areas; 

b. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to 
the construction works; 

c. Maintain and operate all the works after completion in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of 
the Army; 

d. Upon completion of the conduit construction, replace 
pavements, sidewalks, drainage and other appurtenances, 
including those at Broad Street, Flower Street and Laurel 
Street, and bear the cost of removal, replacement, and 
modification to sewers, drains, utilities, or highways beyond 
the area required for excavation and construction of the projects; 

e. Prevent changes in the headpool ponding areas which would 
decrease the effectiveness of the improvements and if ponding 
areas and capacities are impaired, promptly substitute equi- 
valent storage capacity; and 

f. Undertake all practical measures to prevent pollution from 
entering the Park River conduit system. 

D. EXISTING FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS 

5. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

a. Connecticut River Basin. - The comprehensive plans for 
flood control and other purposes for the Connecticut River Basin 
presently consist of 27 reservoirs and 13 local protection projects. 
Sixteen reservoirs and 12 local protection projects are completed 
and in operation. In addition, seven local protection projects have 
been completed under the small projects special continuing authori- 
ties. Flood control reservoirs reduce flood flows from Connecticut 
River tributaries and with the series of dikes, floodwalls and channel 
improvements, principally along the main stream, protect many highly 
developed areas in the basin. 



One of the local protection projects authorized by the Flood 
Control Act of 1938 and described in House Document No. 455, 
75th Congress, 2nd Session, is at Hartford, Connecticut on the 
west bank of the Connecticut River, 52 miles above the mouth. The 
authorized Park River Local Protection Project is an extension of 
the completed section of the Park River conduit constructed as part 
of the Hartford Local Protection Project. 

b. Hartford Local Protection. - The completed Hartford Local 
Protection Project, providing protection for 2, 800 acres of urban 
area, consists of 35, 000 feet of earth dikes, 4, 400 feet of concrete 
floodwalls, six stoplog structures, five pumping stations, three 
pressure conduits, and appurtenant drainage facilities. The princi- 
pal features of the project are shown on Plates 2-1 and 2-2. 

The dikes and floodwalls extend from high ground near the 
Hartford- Windsor town line south to high ground just below the Hart- 
ford-Wether sfield boundary line. Along this perimeter there are six 
stoplog structures which are closed when floodwaters threaten to spill 
into the protected area. During flood stages, storm and sanitary 
sewage is evacuated from the protected area by the five pumping 
stations, two of which have been built by the city of Hartford. The 
three pressure conduits which discharge interior drainage and pre- 
vent backwater flooding from the Connecticut River are: 

(1) Park River Conduit. - Improvement for the completed 
section of the Park River consists of a twin-rectangular reinforced 
concrete conduit enclosing the lower 5, 600 feet of Park River to pro- 
tect the low level built-up area of the city from Connecticut River 
backwater and from floods caused by runoff from the Park River 
Basin. Each section of conduit measures 30 feet wide and 19 feet- 

4 inches high with a flatly curved crown and invert. The conduit 
was designed to discharge 18, 000 cfs with the Connecticut River stage 
at 26. feet above mean sea level and the headpool at elevation 44. 
feet mean sea level. 

The function of the Park River < ■ ge all 

flows, up to design flood level, from the Park River B<> 
Connecticut River without damage to the area protected by rt- 

ford Dike along the west bank of the Connecticut River. It has p 
effective in all storms since completion in 1 

(2) Gully Brook Conduit . - The Flood COJ I C 
(Public Law 759) modified the Hartford Lot 

eluding construction of the Gul Condu as 

described ltl House Document 804, 2nd Session. 



Improvements consist of 3, 100 feet of a rectangular section pressure 
conduit enclosing a portion of Gully Brook from Kenney Park through 
the downtown district and across Bushnell Park to empty the brook into 
the Park River conduit about 600 feet below its inlet. The project pre- 
vents backwater flooding from the Connecticut River and evacuates 
interior drainage from the 2. 3 square mile drainage area of Gully 
Brook. 

(3) Folly Brook Conduit . - The project for flood control 
at Hartford was further amended by the Flood Control Act of 1950 
(Public Law 516, 81st Congress, 2nd Session) authorizing construc- 
tion of the Folly Brook Dike and Conduit in accordance with plans on 
file in the Office, Chief of Engineers. Improvements consist of 
2,200 feet of a rectangular, reinforced concrete box conduit, 650 feet 
of rolled earth fill dike and modifications to an existing stoplog struc- 
ture. The Folly Brook dike and conduit provide protection for approxi- 
mately 120 acres of the Folly Brook drainage area in Hartford against 
flooding from over -bank flow of the brook and backwater from the 
Connecticut River. 

Construction of the Hartford Local Protection Project, 
including the Park River and Gully Brook conduits, was initiated in 
1938 and substantially completed in 1944. Work on the Folly Brook 
conduit and dike was started in 1956 and construction was completed 
in 1957. 

The Federal cost of the completed improvement was 
$6, 929, 100, including $835, 000 in Public Works Administration funds. 
Local cost was $3, 930, 700, including $1, 149, 600 for lands and 
damages and $2, 781,100 for special features, such as increased grades 
for dikes and walls, increased top width of dikes, a conduit for Park 
River in lieu of a walled open channel and special architectural treat- 
ment for the Bushnell Park pumping station. The completed project 
is now operated and maintained by the city of Hartford. 

Since completion, the existing works have prevented over 
$53 million in damages. In a recurrence of the 1936 flood stages, the 
project would prevent over $52 million in damages in the 2,800-acre 
highly developed urban area of Hartford. 



6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Following the August 1955 flood, the Soil Conservation 
Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with 
the Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Connecticut de- 
veloped plans for flood control works in the watersheds of the North 
Branch Park River and the South Branch Park River. These plans 
were prepared under the authority of the Watershed Protection and 
Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 566, as amended, and provide for the 
construction of four floodwater -retarding structures on each, the 
North and South Branches, 9. 2 miles of channel improvement along 
the South Branch Park River and tributaries as well as the acquisition 
of land in Deadwood Swamp in the South Branch watershed for the 
natural storage of flood runoff. The principal features of the plan are 
shown on Plate 2-1. 

Construction of the eight floodwater -retarding structures 
has been completed. Cost of improvements in the North Branch, 
namely the Blue Hills, Wintonbury, Bloomfield and Cold Springs 
Reservoirs, total about $5,000,000. These structures provide for 
4, 400 acre-feet of detention storage from a total drainage area of 
8. 1 square miles. Those in the South Branch, namely, the Talcott, 
Bugbee, South, and Burnt Hill Reservoirs, cost a total of approxi- 
mately $2, 000, 000 and provide detention storage for 2, 470 acre-feet 
from a total drainage area of 5. 2 square miles. 

Flood control works along the South Branch Park River and 
tributaries consisting of dikes, flood walls, pumping stations, re- 
locations and realignments is estimated to cost $12,000,000. Im- 
provements along the South Branch Park River from Hamilton Street 
upstream to the mouth of Trout Brook, a distance of about 12, 760 feet, 
and extending upstream along Trout Brook for about 2,925 feet, are 
currently under construction. Most of the work along the South Branch 
Park River is complete except for the upper section and along Trout 
Brook which is scheduled for completion in 1973. In along 

the lower 3, 000 feet of Rockledge Brook, a tributary of 1 rook, 

have been completed. Construction of channel improvemei i 
started on the lower 3, 100 feet of Piper Brook, 

South Branch Park River. Total flood control works u C- 

tion or completed amount to approximately 4. I I 

The remainder of the proposed work ( .1 

miles of < hanne] improvement alon^ 1 rout Brool , 
Mill Brook has not been scheduli 
rights to the kind in Deadwood Swamp h.ive been 

$64, 00 0. 



7. NON-FEDERAL AGENCIES 

a. General. The Greater Hartford Flood Commission, es- 
tablished by the Connecticut Legislature in 1955, is authorized to 
provide for, construct, or arrange for the construction of flood con- 
trol measures in the Park River Basin in the name of and on behalf 
of the City of Hartford. It became apparent to the Commission early 
in 1959 during the initial design of Interstate Route 84, that it would 
be desirable to construct the highway so as to permit later considera- 
tion of flood control measures. The highway alignment, crossing the 
City of Hartford, utilizes wherever possible the airspace above the 
Park River. It was decided, therefore, to coordinate with the State 
Highway Department and design and construct the highway crossings 
so that they might later be converted to pressure conduits. 

b. Park River Conduit Extension. Four sections of the con- 
duit extension (Sections 1, 3, 6 and 8, shown on Plate 2-2) were con- 
structed by the State Highway Department in cooperation with the 
Greater Hartford Flood Commission and the City of Hartford. The 
four sections of conduit completed have a total length of 7, 143 feet 
and cost approximately $19, 000, 000, including appurtenant works. 

In addition to these four sections, the Flood Commission 
and the State Highway Department jointly installed part of the drainage 
system and the substructure including four sluice gates for the Armory 
Pumping Station. The remainder of the work to complete the pumping 
station consisting of the superstructure, pumps and equipment is 
included with the construction of the current local protection project. 

Sections 1 and 3 on the Park River are designed for a peak 
flow of 18, 000 c. f. s. Section 6 on the South Branch and Section 8 
on the North Branch have unrestricted normal flow capacities of 22, 000 
c. f. s. and 1 f 000 c f. s. , respectively. For these sections of con- 
duit to be effective in flood damage prevention, construction of con- 
duit in the "gaps" and an auxiliary conduit will be required. In addi- 
tion to the four sections of conduit, the Highway Department has built 
1, 451 feet of paved channel upstream of the headwall entrance to 
conduit Section 6 on the South Branch Park River. 

c. Cemetery Brook Conduit. - Cemetery Brook, about 1. 75 
miles long, flows in a northerly direction from the Hartford-Wether s - 
field town line to the South Branch Park River near Brookfield Street. 
In order to prevent local overbank flooding, the Greater Hartford 
Flood Commission has enclosed about 7, 200 feet in a reinforced con- 

10 



crete conduit, and has improved 400 feet of channel. 

d. Trout Brook Channel Improvement . - The State High- 
way Department, in conjunction with the construction of Interstate 
Route 84, has improved 3, 700 feet of channel on Trout Brook and 
500 feet on Rockledge Brook in West Hartford. This work, providing 
a more efficient waterway and eliminating channel restrictions, has 
been completed in a manner similar to the plans of the Soil Conserva- 
tion Service. 

E. AUTHORIZED PLAN 

8. DESCRIPTION 

The plan of flood protection as authorized and shown on 
Plate 2-2 consisted of constructing extension sections 2,4, 5 and 7, 
a junction structure, a headwall, an auxiliary conduit and a pumping 
station. The four sections of conduit extension work would join units 
previously constructed and would consist of twin rectangular rein- 
forced concrete conduit enclosing a total of 3, 716 feet of the Park 
River. 

The junction structure would be constructed of reinforced 
concrete and would serve to combine the flows from the North and 
South Branches for distribution to the Park River conduit and the auxi- 
liary conduit. A reinforced concrete headwall with a top elevation at 
54. 5 feet, m. s. 1. would be constructed at the entrance to the North 
Branch conduit extension (section 8) near Farmington Avenue. The 
auxiliary conduit would be a 22-foot inside diameter, circular cross 
section concrete-lined tunnel extending from the junction structure to 
the Connecticut River by way of Park Street, Wyllys Street and Char- 
ter Oak Avenue, a total length of 9, 100 feet. The lower end of the 
tunnel would pass under Highway 1-91 and the existing floodwall at the 
Connecticut River. 

The Riverside pumping station would be located on the ri. 
bank of the Park River adjacent to the proposed conduit sc • to 

pump low-level drainage into the conduit in times of flood* Kunoff 
would be conducted to the pumping station by pipes paralleling b< 
segments of conduit extension already built and als 
duit extension sections. 

1 1 



9. LANDS AND DAMAGES 

The sections of conduit required to complete the conduit 
extensions would primarily fall within the banks of the Park River 
and the North Branch of the Park River. The auxiliary conduit would 
be constructed principally within street rights-of-way. Where the 
conduit passes under private property, permanent easements would 
be secured. 

The plan as authorized included about 2. 5 acres of land to 
be acquired in fee, permanent easements to be taken on about four 
acres, and temporary easements for construction on two acres. One 
commercial and one industrial building and two residences were to be 
acquired. 

10. RELOCATIONS 

Construction of the sections of conduit extension required 
the removal of Broad Street, Flower Street, and Laurel Street 
Bridges. The street pavement, sidewalks, drains and other appur- 
tenances would be relocated in the same general locations with grades 
adjusted to meet the changed conditions. In a number of locations, re- 
location or modifications to existing facilities outside the construction 
area were to be made. 

F. CURRENT NEEDS AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES 

11. FLOOD CONTROL 



a. Current Needs. - The communities in the Park River 
Basin are susceptible to destructive flooding from heavy rainfall or 
a combination of heavy rainfall and melting snow. In general, floods 
in the Park River Basin have occurred coincidentally with Connecticut 
River flooding, although basin flooding has been experienced inde- 
pendent of the conditions on the main river. 

To accommodate the expanding population and economy of the 
basin, considerable residential, commercial, and industrial develop- 
ment has taken place, producing greater areas of impervious surface 
and encroachments on the flood plains. The damaging and disruptive 
flooding of roads, bridges, railroads, buildings and utilities has af- 
fected every community in the basin. 

12 



In the record flood of August 1955, the Park River conduit 
operated as designed and effectively discharged all flood flows to 
reach it. However, serious flooding was experienced upstream of 
the conduit entrance in the City of Hartford due to insufficient chan- 
nel capacity. Some degree of this upstream flooding was anticipated 
when the Park River conduit was constructed in 1944, but since the 
conduit's principal function was to transmit flows to the Connecticut 
River and to prevent damage in the lower part of the city, the in- 
frequent occurrence of upstream flooding was, under conditions 
then in existence, not considered to be serious. Since 1944, the 
property values in the basin upstream of the conduit have increased 
and growth and development has taken place. As a result, the prob- 
lem of flooding and damage in this area is now a serious one. 

The Department of Agriculture plans for detention reser- 
voirs and channel improvement within the basin are designed to re- 
duce flood damages principally in upstream areas below the reser- 
voirs and adjacent to the improved channels where extensive housing 
and highway development has taken place in recent years. The 
channel improvements necessary to remove the high concentrations 
of runoff from frequent storms will increase downstream flood peaks 
in larger, less frequent storms. The net result of basin develop- 
ment and faster concentration of runoff is a substantial increase in 
the magnitude of the standard project flood. 

The isolated sections of conduit extension constructed in 
Hartford and serving as substitutes for bridges for the interstate 
highways are not effective for flood control, nor are they constructed 
to be effective without extension. If the conduit extension were con- 
tinuous and the 'gaps' filled in with comparable sized conduit to con- 
tain flood flows, the conduit effectiveness would be limited to the 
18, 000 c. f. s. design capacity of the existing Park River conduit. 
A standard project flood in the basin, formulated with allowance 
for changed future conditions in the upper watershed consisting of 
urban expansion, would cause an unrestricted flow of 30, 300 c. f. s. 
at the confluence of the North and South Branches or 1 Z, 300 c. f. s. 
greater than the capacity of the Park River conduit. Even though the 
conduit extension were completed by filling in the 'gaps', further 
flood control improvement will be needed to prevent extensive flood- 
ing and damage in Hartford from floods approaching standard project 
flood magnitude. 

1 J 



b. Development Objectives. - The Soil Conservation Service 
retarding structures will reduce downstream peak flows during major 
storms. However, improvement of river channels in the South 
Branch watershed now under way, consisting of realignment, widening 
and deepening, will increase downstream peak flows due to general 
lowering of gradients, loss of valley storage, and more efficient 
flow conditions. The net effect of these improvements, recent high- 
way and housing developments and projections of future growth, is 
to increase the standard project flood at the confluence of the North 
and South Branches from 25, 800 c. f. s. , under 1955 conditions in the 
basin, to 30, 300 c. f. s. under current conditions. 

Without further flood control improvements, a standard proj- 
ect flood would inundate extensive areas in Hartford upstream of the 
existing Park River conduit. Due to the limited capacity of the con- 
duit to discharge Park River flows to the Connecticut River, (18, 000 
c. f. s. ) the head dike and river banks would be overtopped. An esti- 
mated 10, 000 acre-feet of water would flow overland through lower 
Bushnell Park and highways and inundate 1,800 acres of urban area 
behind the Connecticut River dike and the floodwalls. 

The plan to control flooding in Hartford from a standard proj- 
ect flood in the Park River basin consists principally of filling in 
'gaps' between the sections of conduit work accomplished for highway 
construction and constructing an auxiliary conduit to supplement the 
existing Park River conduit in discharging flows to the Connecticut 
River. The entire conduit system will operate under pressure during 
major storms, with the amount of flow through the existing Park 
River conduit and the auxiliary conduit being governed by the difference 
in elevation at the headpools and at the conduit outlets on the Con- 
necticut River. 

During the record flood of August 1955, in the Park River 
Basin, the Connecticut River rose to a maximum elevation of 30 
feet, msl. At the time of maximum Park River flow, the stage on 
the Connecticut River was at elevation 26 feet, m. s. 1. For project 
design, it was assumed that the Connecticut River would be at a stage 
of 30 feet, m. s. 1. concurrent with the peak discharge of the standard 
project flood in the Park River Basin. 

The conduit constructed on the South Branch includes an en- 
trance headwall with a top elevation of 54. 5 feet, m. s. 1. With a simi- 
lar headwall proposed at the North Branch conduit entrance, and an al- 
lowance of 2. 5 feet of freeboard, the upper limit of temporary storage 

14 



that can be retained in the Branches is to elevation 52 feet, m. s. 1. 
Above this elevation, widespread flooding and major damages would 
occur. In addition the State of Connecticut and the Greater Hartford 
Flood Commission have established encroachment lines and flood 
plain zoning predicated on elevation 52 feet, mean sea level. 

In order to pass a standard project flood without exceeding 
52 feet, m. s. 1. on the Branches and with a Connecticut River stage 
of 30 feet, m. s. 1. , a 22-foot diameter auxiliary conduit is required 
to supplement the existing Park River conduit. The maximum flows 
through the existing Park River conduit and the auxiliary conduit 
under design flood conditions are 18, 000 c. f. s. and 5, 800 c. f. s. , 
respectively. Flows over and above the system capacity are tem- 
porarily stored in the headwater areas of the North and South 
Branches. 

G. ALTERNATIVES 

12. CONSIDERED IMPROVEMENTS 

a. General. - Following the August 1955 record flood in 
the Park River basin, the Greater Hartford Flood Commission and 
the Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture en- 
gaged consulting engineers to study the flood problem in the Park 
River basin and determine possible corrective measures. These 
studies have resulted in the recently completed projects and the 
current programs of construction. Alternative solutions previou 
considered in the pre-authorization studies were reviewed and upda' 
during the Phase I - Plan Formulation investigations. 

b. Additional Reservoirs 



(1) Greater Hartford Flood Commission . - Studies ac- 
complished for the Greater Hartford Flood Commission concerning 
the flood problem investigated many alternative res< reser- 

voir systems in the headwaters as well as channel Improve 
throughout the basin. These were considered as BUppleiXM 
of downstream conduit and auxiliary conduit e\ a. The Commisi 

also considered the diversion of North and South Bx 

One reservoir plan, considered in 
Greater Hartford Flood Commission and Latex 
by the Soil Conservation Service, appe. be the 

of the plans not developed. It 
Piper Brook watershed and over 



watershed. At the time of the original study, the plan would have 
provided 3, 300 acre-feet of storage from a drainage area of 9. 7 square 
miles. However, the construction of an east-west interstate highway, 
and a proposed north-south interstate highway passes through the stor- 
age area reducing the storage to about 2, 300 acre-feet. The plan, es- 
timated to cost about $15, 000, 000, was considered not feasible or 
economically justified. 

(2) Soil Conservation Service. - From studies prepared 
for the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), plans of improvement were 
developed for the North and South Branches. The eight reservoirs con- 
structed were derived as the maximum reservoir development on the 
basis of studies inclusive of review of previous studies by others. 

Four of the completed SCS detention reservoirs in the 
North Branch watershed were selected from a total of 1 4 sites studied. 
The most favorable of the remaining 10 sites investigated and eliminated 
was a dam and reservoir on Tumbledown Brook. The reservoir would 
store 1, 700 acre-feet from a 3. 8 square mile drainage area and would 
cost an estimated $5, 000, 000. The site was eliminated principally 
because of strong local opposition to land acquisition involved. It is 
anticipated that local objection to development of this site would be 
encountered in the future also. Development of other smaller sites 
would be less favorable and larger sites would involve thickly settled 
areas. A total of thirteen sites including the four completed detention 
reservoirs in the South Branch watershed were studied by the Soil 
Conservation Service. Eight of the thirteen sites were found to be not 
economically justified because of recent development of high value 
properties and the alignment of existing and proposed interstate high- 
ways and access roads in reservoir or structure areas. One site, 
Deadwood Swamp, was not developed due to its effectiveness under 
natural conditions. The maintenance and flowage rights of Deadwood 
Swamp in its present state have been acquired. 

(3) Corps of Engineers . - The construction of flood con- 
trol reservoirs in upstream tributaries of the Park River was studied 
as a method of providing flood protection for the lower, built-up, flood- 
prone areas in Hartford. A comprehensive study of topographic maps, 
supplemented by field reconnaissance, revealed that the desirable sites 
have been utilized by the Department of Agriculture for floodwater- 
retarding structures, and that certain of the remaining sites considered 
were too far removed from the industrial and urban damage centers to 
provide any significant reduction in flood levels or to warrant further 



16 



study. Other sites were abandoned when it was found that reservoir 
construction requiring acquisition of high value residential properties 
would be more costly and socially disruptive than alternative flood con- 
trol improvements in the lower basin. Thus this approach was eliminated. 

c. Modification of Existing Reservoirs . - A review by the 
Corps of Engineers of the eight ungated upstream detention reservoirs 
constructed by the Department of Agriculture was made with a view 
towards introducing modifications which would allow them to be utilized 
for floodwater retention rather than only for retardation. It was found 
that the cost involved in accomplishing the necessary structural modi- 
fications would exceed the anticipated downstream benefits. Thus this 
approach was considered impractical. 

d. Diversion of the South Branch 



(1) Greater Hartford Flood Commission. - In an early 
study consideration was given to the diversion of Piper Brook flood 
runoff to the Mattabesset River by way of Webster Brook. A field and 
office review of the plan indicated a cost of over $15, 000, 000. About 
22, 000 feet of channel improvement, rebuilding of four bridges on Web- 
ster Brook, and three on the Mattabesset River, and construction of 

a diversion structure and dikes and walls at several locations would be 
the major items of cost. During a major storm, the Mattabesset 
River would be at flood stage and diversion of Park River runoff would 
be a liability. The plan would be less effective than increasing down- 
stream conduit capacity by construction of an auxiliary conduit in the 
Park River basin. 

(2) Corps of Engineers . - In addition to reviewing pre- 
vious studies on the diversion of flood flows from Piper Brook to the 
Mattabesset River by way of Webster Brook, an investigation was made 
of possible diversion of Piper Brook from just below its confluence with 
Mill Brook, in the watershed of the South Branch Park River, to Wethers- 
field Cove. Either plan would be more costly than providing conduit 
capacity in the lower basin and would add to flood flows m adjacent bai 
Thus this approach, too, was considered impractical. 

e. Additional Third Barrel. - Addition 
5, 600 foot existing Park River conduit in Lieu of the propoi 
conduit was investigated and found physically not feasible. i om- 

pletion of the original conduit in 1944, a major divided highw 
constructed over the lower two-third •"> tnt< 



17 



Highway No. 91 to a point west of Main Street. The existing conduit 
passes under Main Street and the Hartford Public Library which occupies 
a half block on the east side of Main Street. High retaining walls exist 
east and west of Main Street. Multiple story buildings line the highway 
on both sides directly behind the retaining walls. In addition, a divided 
highway is planned for construction over the remaining upper third of 
the conduit in the near future. 

f. Local Protection Works. - Plans to supplement the con- 
duit work then under way by the Connecticut State Highway Department 
were studied during the preauthorization stage. They included those 
measures that would be effective in a standard project flood. Construc- 
tion of walls and dikes along the river banks and a pumping station to 
intercept drainage was considered. Dikes and walls would rise about 
30 feet above the normal water level of the river. Owing to existing 
urban development in most areas, space is not available for earth dikes 
without the taking of valuable buildings and properties. In both cases, 
dikes and flood walls would encroach upon valuable urban properties 
and create an unsightly condition affecting the social environment of the 
Hartford business area. Although the cost of a combination of dikes 
and walls was found to be about equal to the cost of conduit construction, 
the degree of flood protection would be much less without the hydraulic 
pressure effect of the box conduit and the auxiliary conduit. Construc- 
tion of floodwalls and dikes along the Park River was determined not 
feasible or adequate to provide flood protection against the standard 
project flood due to the limited discharge capacity of the existing Park 
River conduit. 

g. Channel Encroachment Lines. - The State Water Re- 
sources Commission has established channel encroachment lines from 
the outlet of the Soil Conservation Reservoirs downstream to Albany 
Avenue on the North Branch Park River. Plans for the establishment 
of similar lines are being considered for the South Branch. Establish- 
ment of these lines will be valuable from a long-range point of view by 
controlling the construction of new structures in flood-prone areas and 
thereby reducing future flood damages. However, this program does not 
relieve present development from the impact of a standard project storm. 

h. Flood Proofing and Zoning Measures. - Zoning ordinances 
and encroachment lines have been established by Hartford and West 
Hartford in the headpool areas above the conduit entrances on the North 
and South Branches. The Greater Hartford Flood Commission or its 
successor must approve any structure, use, or filling within the desig- 
nated flood plains before a permit for such action can be issued. The 



18 



Commission requires that the holder of the permit must provide equiva- 
lent water storage capacity before encroaching upon the headpool pond- 
ing area. Consideration was given to the possibilities of using a com- 
bination of flood proofing and zoning measures to decrease future flood 
damages in the downtown Hartford area now subject to inundation from 
a Standard Project Flood on the Park River. It was determined that such 
measures could not readily be achieved except through the expenditure 
of large sums of money and the disruption of city functions. Flood proofing 
existing buildings would not provide protection to the very heavy vehicular 
and pedestrian traffic in the downtown area, nor to the heavy vehicular 
traffic on the arteries leading into and through Hartford. Access to and 
from the city would be jeopardized. 

1. Flood Warning and Evacuation. - A system to provide ade- 
quate warning to allow the temporary evacuation of people from the af- 
fected flood areas could be put into effect, but the system would be of 
little value. Flood warnings would inform people to leave prior to 
flooding conditions, but commercial and industrial establishments with 
their fixed equipment and large inventories would be inundated suffering 
excessive losses. Transportation would not be accessible and many 
utilities would be damaged and cease to function. The economic life of 
Hartford would be disrupted for many weeks. The permanent evacuation 
of this densely developed urban area is not practical or feasible as it 
would require the removal of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of 
improvements affecting the existence and economics of the entire 
metropolitan area of Hartford. 

13. DISCUSSION 

a. General. - Alternative flood control improvements were 
given consideration with major emphasis on providing upstream res- 
ervoir storage and diversion in lieu of auxiliary conduit capacity. 

The presence of recent housing, highway and commercial develop- 
ments in the basin, as well as established communities along the main 
streams, makes the construction of large impoundments impractical, 
economically infeasible and socially unacceptable. Impoundments 
throughout the basin in the future will be less favorable due to con- 
tinued growth and development. 

b. Upstream Reservoirs . - The eight completed SCS North 
and South Branch detention reservoirs with a combined st capa- 
city of 6,870 acre-feet, would not eliminate the need for filling Lin- con- 
duit "gaps" or constructing an auxiliary conduit. The reservoirs in 
conjunction with the existing channel program will rc.iiize flood c-<m- 



i I 



trol benefits in low areas along the main stream. However, the more 
rapid concentration of flow combined with future development will 
increase flows at Hartford in a major flood. In a standard project 
flood, without an auxiliary conduit or upstream storage, the headpools 
at the North and South Branch conduit extension entrances would rise 
to elevations above 54. 5 feet m. s. L , or more than 2. 5 feet above the 
design elevation of 52. feet, m. s. 1. overtopping the headwalls. Pro- 
vision of total storage required in upstream reservoirs, if feasible, 
would exceed the cost of the auxiliary conduit. Therefore, no further 
consideration was given to reservoir storage. 

c. Stream Diversion. - Diversion of South Branch flood 
runoff to Wethersfield Cove from the confluence of Mill and Piper 
Brook consisting of three miles of conduit and a diversion structure 
would be more costly than the proposed downstream auxiliary conduit. 
Diversion of North Branch flood flows to the Connecticut River either 
through Windsor or Hartford would require construction works through 
an urban area incurring excessive costs that would be greater than the 
proposed auxiliary conduit downstream. Therefore, diversion of flood 
flows was found not to merit further study. 

d. Non-Structural Measures. - Future damage in both 
branches above Hartford will be reduced by the completed detention 
reservoirs and the channel improvement work now under construc- 
tion. Losses will be reduced by the current program of flood plain 
zoning and established encroachment lines along the channels. Future 
losses may also be reduced by extending the program of flood plain 
zoning in areas not fully protected by the improvements. Flood proofing 
and evacuation of well established commercial and industrial establish- 
ments in the major damage areas in Hartford is not a practical solution. 
These areas require protection against future floods. Flood warning may 
be effective in moving people but would have little value in reducing 
losses to commercial and industrial establishments. 

14. CONCLUSIONS 

The most practical solution to the flood problem in Hartford 
consists of completing the conduit extensions and adding an auxiliary 
conduit to provide protection from the standard project flood. The pro- 
posed improvement provides a high degree of flood protection and in 
comparison with alternatives investigated, is the optimum plan affording 
enhancement of the environment, social well-being and economic growth 
in the metropolitan Hartford areas. 



20 



H. INVESTIGATIONS 

15. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS. - Flood control at Hartford has 
been considered in the following published reports: 

a. " 308" Report. - A report dated 28 February 1935 and 
printed as House Document No. 412, 74th Congress, 2nd Session, 
presented a comprehensive plan for combined flood control and power 
development of the Connecticut River and its tributaries. The report 
recommended an initial Flood Control Plan of ten flood control res- 
servoirs in Vermont and New Hampshire. 

b. 1937 Survey Report. - A report dated 20 March 1937 
and printed as House Document No. 455, 75th Congress, 2nd Session, 
proposed a revised comprehensive plan for flood control of tne Con- 
necticut River and its tributaries consisting of 20 reservoirs and dikes 
at 7 localities, including the city of Hartford. The report recommended 
that the authorization for additional reservoirs be deferred and that the 
authorized project be modified to provide for the protection of 7 localities 
by dikes and related works. 

c. First Interim Report. - The Board of Engineers for Rivers 
and Harbors, in a report printed as House Document No. 653, 76th 
Congress, 3rd session, approved 11 March 1940 recommended that the 
authorized project for protection by dikes and related works of 7 locali- 
ties in Massachusetts and Connecticut be modified to provide for con- 
struction of the project at East Hartford in accordance with revised 
plans. The city of Hartford was one of the localities included in the 
authorized plan. 

d. Second Interim Review Report . - A report of the Board of 
Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, printed as House Document No. 
724, 76th Congress, 3rd Session, approved 9 May 1940, recommended 
modification of the approved flood control plan to include 20 resi 

and protective works at 4 additional sites. 

e. Gully Brook Report . - A report dated 20 September 1941 
and printed as House Document No. 804, 77th Congress, 2nd S» »n , 
recommended that the existing flood control project at Hartford be 
modified to include construction of the Gully Brook condu ;'g 
from the north bank of the Park River to a point approxim 

above Edwards Street. 

21 



f. NENYIAC Report. - Flood control for Hartford, Con- 
necticut is covered in Part Two, Chapter XXI of The Resources of 
the New England-New York Region, This comprehensive report on 
power potentialities and on the land, water and related natural re- 
sources of the region, prepared by the New England, New York Inter - 
Agency Committee was submitted to the President of the United States 
by the Secretary of the Army on 27 April 1956. A flood control system 
of 26 reservoirs and 10 local protective works, including the completed 
Hartford local protection project, was proposed. Part I and Chapter I 
of Part 2 are printed as Senate Document 14, 85th Congress, 1st Ses- 
sion. 

g. Survey Report. - The Report on Review of Survey for the 
Park River Basin, Connecticut was completed by the New England 
Division in 1966 and was subsequently printed as Senate Document No. 
43, 90th Congress, 1st Session. This document served as a basis 
for authorization of the Park River Local Protection Project. 

h. Connecticut River Comprehensive Study. - A report dated 
June 1970 proposed a revised comprehensive plan of improvement for 
the Connecticut River Basin in the interest of flood control, navigation, 
hydroelectric power development, water supply, and other purposes 
coordinated with related land resources. The completed nine-volume 
report was submitted by the Coordinating Committee to the New Eng- 
land River Basins Commission in October 1970 for coordination of re- 
view by the heads of the Federal departments and the Governors of the 
four basin States. The final plan includes projects and programs 
recommended for initiation in the next 1 to 15 years. Potential meas- 
ures were also identified to meet the basin needs through the year 2020. 
Included in the recommendations for early implementation were the 
construction of five local protection projects within the basin including 
the Park River project essentially as authorized by the 1968 Flood Con- 
trol Act, P. L. 90-483. 

16. POST -AUTHORIZATION INVESTIGATIONS. - In order to reaffirm 
the authorized Park River Local Protection Project and/ or to reformu- 
late the scope of the flood protection plan, basic data extracted from 
previous studies and past reports were fully utilized. Additional studies 
have been made as follows: 

a. Project Scope. - Basic planning decisions made in the 
general investigations stage have been reviewed, updated and supple- 
mented by field surveys and conferences with local officials. Project 
coordination has been maintained with other governmental and state 
agencies as well as local interests. Environmental impacts and effects 

22 



of the flood control works, project features and cost estimates have 
been reviewed and updated. 

b. Hydrologic Studies. - Previous investigations were re- 
viewed, updated and supplemented with additional data developed based 
on current site conditions. Detailed hydrologic analyses have been 
made to determine stream flow, flood development, project design 
flood, criteria for interior drainage and pumping requirements. The 
methodology and results of these studies are presented in Design 
Memorandum No. 1, Hydrology, which has been submitted for review. 

c. Damage Surveys . - Previous flood damage surveys in the 
Park River flood plains of Hartford were reviewed and updated to con- 
form with current site conditions. Recent field investigations revealed 
extensive changes and developments have occurred in recent years. 
Detailed analysis of potential flood losses and damages have been made 
and flood prevention benefits have been revised and updated accordingly. 

d. Lands and Damages. - Appraisals of lands and damages 
previously determined have been reviewed and updated in accordance 
with present site conditions and current real estate values in the project 
area. 

e. Subsurface Explorations. - Information derived from sub- 
surface explorations made by others and utilized in the pre-authoriza - 
tion investigations was reviewed. Geologic subsurface investigations 
were made of foundation conditions at selected locations along the Park 
River and the North Branch for the proposed twin-box conduit and along 
Park Street for the proposed auxiliary conduit. Detailed data derived 
was used to substantiate or modify previous information considered to 
determine project construction features and costs. 

f. Official Meetings . - Meetings were held with the Greater 
Hartford Flood Commission, Connecticut State Highway Departm 
Metropolitan District and Officials of the City of Hartford to k< 
them advised of the project features and to exchange ideas as well 
coordinate the proposed improvements. Information concerning non- 
Federal project cost have been discussed with the Greater H 

Flood Commission. 

g. Public Meeting. - A public meeting was held m 
Connecticut on 17 October 1972 to exchange information concex 
authorized flood control plan and to procure the objectives and n< 
interested parties as well 

development. Information was also req - i eco- 

logical and environmental impacts relative t< 



Approximately thirty-five persons attended the public meeting. 
Seventeen spoke or participated in the discussion including state and 
city officials and representatives of business establishments, public 
utilities, civic organizations and individuals. Written statements for 
the record from United States Congressman William R. Cotter and 
Connecticut State Senator Joseph J. Fauliso presented by the Deputy 
Mayor of Hartford favored construction of the project. The desires 
and needs of the Greater Hartford Flood Commission were presented 
by the Commission Chairman. 

Mr. Batycki, Director of Public Works, Hartford, representing 
the City Manager, urged immediate action on the project and submitted 
eleven prepared statements by various Hartford department heads rep- 
resenting redevelopment, health, safety and other functions of the city 
government, all of which expressed support for the project. 

Of the seventeen speakers, sixteen spoke in favor of the flood 
protection improvements with major emphasis on extending the twin- 
box conduit upstream of Farmington Avenue and starting construction of 
the project as early as possible. One speaker spoke in opposition of 
structural flood control measures and favored land management and non- 
structural controls. 

17. FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS. - Detailed design of the recommended 
project will require additional studies and investigations prior to con- 
struction. Topographic surveys of the project site will be accomplished 
and the boring and drilling program will be expanded to more accurately 
define subsurface conditions. General Design Memorandum, Phase II - 
Project Design will be prepared to present general data in more technical 
detail on the components, functions and costs of the Park River Local Pro' 
tection Project. The report will serve as a basis for further detailed 
design studies which will be included in subsequent feature design memo- 
randa. Construction plans and specifications will be prepared following 
review and approval of design memoranda. 

I. PLAN FORMULATION 



18. GENERAL. - The prime purpose for flood control improvement 
along the Park River is to reduce destructive flood damages in the densely 
populated and developed urban area of Hartford, Connecticut. Alternatives 
discussed previously in Section G of this report eliminated the practicality 
of reducing peak flows at Hartford through upstream reservoir storage or 
stream diversion to adjacent watersheds. Evacuation, flood proofing or 
extensive restrictive zoning of the flood plain is impracticable due to the 
advanced stage of development. Provision for further flood control was 
therefore limited to supplementing the existing Park River conduit system 

24 



in the lower basin. The sections of conduit constructed by local interests 
as Interstate Highway crossings have open reaches. As a result a serious 
flood threat remains. However, in conjunction with the existing Park 
River conduit, they provide a favorable basis for additional flood control 
improvements. 

Preliminary consideration was given to construction of conduit to 
fill in the "gaps"between the sections of highway conduit and installation 
of a pumping station as the plan for flood control. In view of the rapid 
runoff caused by urbanization in the upstream areas, this plan alone 
would not be adequate to discharge a project design flood or provide 
the high degree of flood protection justified for a major urban area. 

The project for adequate flood control in Hartford, in addition to 
extending the existing conduits and constructing pumping stations, in- 
cludes the construction of an auxiliary conduit from the junction of the 
two branches of the Park River to the Connecticut River. 

19. CONDUIT EXTENSIONS. - The Park River twin-barrelled conduit, 
each section 19'-4" high and 30'-0" wide, completed in 1944, extends 
5600 feet upstream from the Connecticut River through the business 
section of Hartford to the westerly end of Bushnell Park. In 1968, the 
city of Hartford through the Greater Hartford Flood Commission working 
with the State of Connecticut, completed four sections of twin-rectangular 
concrete conduit in conjunction with the construction of Interstate High- 
way No. 84 (see Plate 2-2). 

Section 1 of the recently constructed twin-barrel conduit, each 
barrel 26'-6" high and 34'-0" wide, joins the existing Park River conduit 
and extends 1, 213 feet upstream to a point by the Connecticut State Armory 
building. Further upstream on the Park River, Section 3 consisting of 
1, 710 feet of conduit, each barrel 26'-6" high and 34'-0" wide, was con- 
structed under 1-84 and Capitol Avenue. Conduit Section 6, each barrel 
27'-6" high and 36'-0" wide, is 1,460 feet in length and located in the 
lower end of the South Branch Park River just above the river confluence 
with the North Branch Park River. Conduit Section 8, each barrel 
25'-0" high and 22'-0" wide, was constructed along the North Branch 
Park River from just below 1-84 and upstream for a distance of 2, 760 
feet to a point about 75 feet south of Farmington Avenue. 

The original Park River conduit was d< Tge capacity 

of 18,000 cfs. With a greater design storm than previously u 
additional development in the basin, the project design flood would produce 
a flow of 30, 300 cfs at Riverside Street If the Park River had uni 

25 



capacity. With existing conditions the design flood would overtop river 
banks and headwalls and cause serious flooding in downtown Hartford. 
Completion of open sections in the existing conduit system will permit 
pressurizing the entire conduit system thereby increasing the overall 
capacity. 

Construction of twin rectangular concrete conduits conforming 
in size and shape to the existing sections is derived as the least dis- 
ruptive and most feasible and economical project feature to provide 
flood protection along the Park River, North and South Branches and in 
the city of Hartford. This would provide a continuous conduit from the 
Connecticut River upstream to the headwall entrances on the North and 
South Branches. 

During project formulation it became apparent that a positive 
need exists to extend the North Branch conduit to a point above the 
Farmington Avenue bridge. The Greater Hartford Flood Commission 
has magnified past expressions of interest in favor of this extension 
as indicated by their letter dated 2 June 1972 included in Appendix A, 
Exhibit 4. Also, during the public meeting of 1 7 October 1972, several 
officials of the city of Hartford expressed major emphasis on extending 
the twin-box conduit upstream of Farmington Avenue. The headwall 
and concrete wing walls along the south side of the roadway would create 
detrimental economic, social and environmental effects on the de- 
veloped urban area of Farmington Avenue. Without doubt the authorized 
location would not receive total local acceptance. 

The proposed construction of conduit Section 9 from the north 
end of Section 8 and extending north of Farmington Avenue would pre- 
vent flooding and damages along this reach of the river and on Far- 
mington Avenue, one of the city's main and busiest east-west traffic 
arteries. The elevation of the existing roadway on the Farmington 
Avenue Bridge is 50 feet, mean sea level. During a project design 
flood this major artery would be flooded to a depth of two feet. 

The present Farmington Avenue bridge has a limited waterway 
opening consisting of twin-arches; each arch is 24 feet wide at the base 
by 16 feet high with a cross -sectional area of 322 square feet. During 
the 1955 record flood the Albany Street gage upstream of Farmington 
Avenue recorded flows of 10, 000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The 
Farmington Avenue bridge acted partly as a dam during the high flows 
and the roadway was overtopped and floodwaters continued overland 
downstream, Losses and damages were incurred by properties along 
the river and on the north and south sides of Farmington Avenue, Under 

26 



present conditions due to the inadequacy of the bridge opening, overtop- 
ping of the roadway would start with a North Branch flow of about 5, 900 
cfs (Elev. 50 feet, m. s. 1. ); 4, 1 00 cf s less than the 1 955 record flood. 
Minor damages upstream from backwater flooding starts at about ele- 
vation 46 feet, mean sea level. 

With construction of the authorized headwall, the tailwater ele- 
vation downstream of the Farmington Avenue bridge would be reduced, 
thereby increasing the non-overtopping hydraulic capacity of the bridge. 
However, there would still be a significant head loss through the existing 
bridge (4 feet +) with a North Branch design flow of 9,400 cubic feet per 
second. Floodwaters could possibly exceed the depth of two feet (Eleva- 
tion 52) over the roadway and cause additional damages and losses in 
the area. 

During major floods with the headwall located on the south side 
of Farmington Avenue and the roadway overtopped, properties on the 
north side would be flooded and damaged causing possible injurious dis- 
placement of people and disruption of traffic and transportation on the 
major artery as well as obstructions to access in the area. In the 
event of such a condition, the views of local residents and public opinion 
may be critical of the Corps of Engineers by alleging the wall retards 
flows, whereas without the wall, floodwaters would flow overland down- 
stream and spread over a larger flood plain area south of Farmington 
Avenue. 

The headwall situated at the north end of conduit Section 8 would 
be located on State property which may be required for construction of 
a connector from Farmington Avenue to Interstate Highway 84 to relieve 
local traffic congestion. The exit and entrance ramp stubs for th 
connector have previously been constructed in conjunction with the new 
highway system. The headwall at the authorized location would interfere 
with the construction of such a connector. 

Direct economic losses would also result from a decrease 
property values and taxable income to the city of Hartford. I 
community growth is inhibited along the North Br hove Far- 

mington Avenue. Woodland Street, which parallels the e,i 
river, has developed into an area of high-rise luxury apartments EU 
professional buildings. The west side of Woodland Street slopes down 
to the river and an appreciable amount of land is in the flood 
Since the zoning ordinance prohibits filling or building within I od 

plains, further construction and exparu ricted a] ng 

a tax loss to the city of Hartford. 

27 



At the authorized location concrete wing walls extending east 
and west about 350 feet in each direction would be required along the 
south side of Farmington Avenue to tie the headwall into high ground at 
elevation 54. 5 feet, mean sea level. The wing walls would be situated 
in front of apartment houses, driveways, entrance walkways and other 
access ways to private and public properties. Several openings with 
stoplog structures or flood gates would be necessary to provide access 
through the wall for pedestrians and motor vehicles. The concrete 
wall would be about 4. 5 feet above the roadway impairing the view from 
the lower floors of the apartment houses with adverse social impact. 
Also, the wall alignment would encroach upon small front yard lawns 
and shrubs causing detrimental effects on the aesthetic values to the 
buildings as well as the area. 

Construction of conduit Section 9 would consist of about 93 5 
feet of twin-rectangular concrete conduit and a concrete headwall and 
earth dike as shown on Plate 2-2 and 2-5. Studies of terminating the 
conduit and locating the headwall about 150 feet upstream of Farming- 
ton Avenue concluded that it was neither feasible nor practical to meet 
high ground at elevation 54. 5 feet, mean sea level. On the east side 
the headwall would tie into an existing building or would be constructed 
about 150 feet along the north wall of the structure. On the west side an 
earth dike and a concrete flood wall would be constructed between build- 
ings and would have to be extended about 500 feet to Lorraine Street. 
This type of improvement would interfere with access to the back side 
of buildings and parking areas, obstruct driveways, and require the 
taking of valuable lands presently utilized as side and back yards as well 
as for parking. 

The length of 935 feet was selected as the shortest distance 
and most economical location north of Farmington Avenue for the head- 
wall and dike to meet high ground. Finished grades over the conduit 
will blend in with the adjacent area and present use will continue, such 
as for driveways and parking areas. The dike and headwall will be lo- 
cated in an environment where space is not restricted by buildings, 
and where finished grades will meet the natural land contours. The 
area will be landscaped to be aesthetically pleasing to the public. 
Part of the river channel upstream of the headwall will be realigned 
for training flows to the inlet. 

The Section 9 extension is estimated to cost $4, 900, 000 including 
non-Federal costs of $580, 000 for lands and damages and relocations. 
About 2. 5 acres of land and a deteriorated two-story brick garage will 
be required for construction of Section 9. The relocation of a 54-inch 
main interceptor sewer line and sections of a 51 -inch and 27 -inch sewer 
line will be necessary because of the twin-box conduit alignment. Local 

28 



interests are aware of the added non-Federal cost for conduit Section 
9 and have continued to emphasize the need for the conduit extension. 

Because of the relatively limited amount of land between the 
apartments and professional buildings along Woodland Street and the 
North Branch Park River, parking areas are situated on sloping or 
low-lying land. After construction of conduit Section 9, the area will 
be re-graded to provide less abrupt but still natural looking contours. 
The appropriate areas will be paved, seeded or planted as required to 
retain the present open space characteristics. The environmental 
values would also increase by extending the conduit above Farmington 
Avenue. Most of the increase would result from eliminating the con- 
crete wall from Farmington Avenue and improving conditions along the 
North Branch. Erosion exists along the river banks uidermining ad- 
jacent properties, a garage and parking areas. Illegal waste and 
rubbish disposal is evident in the stream and along the banks for a 
short distance above Farmington Avenue. The construction of conduit 
Section 9 will eliminate these problems. 

In light of the above economic, social and environmental dis- 
ruptive effects of tying in a headwall in the originally authorized loca- 
tion, the Section 9 extension was not considered incrementally. From 
an economic objective it is viewed as an essential non-separable element 
in assuring the project's functional integrity. An incremental economic 
analysis may not support the extension due to the fact that the serious 
consequences of flooding would only be realized in the rarer less fre- 
quent storms. However, the concept applied to the total project is to 
provide a high degree of flood protection to this highly urbanized and 
heavily populated area with minimum social and environmental effects. 
Failure to extend the conduit would make an otherwise sound project 
vulnerable to future losses and expose the Corps to critical review. 

20. AUXILIARY CONDUIT . - Construction of the conduit e ;ons 

with a maximum capacity of 18, 000 c. f. s. would not provide \ 
design flood protection for the city of Hartford. The inlets and headwalls 
of the conduit on the North and South Branches would be overtopped re- 
sulting in the release of about 10, 000 acre-feet of water in the dowi.i 
section of Hartford. If it were capable to impound floodflows in excess 
of 18,000 c. f. s. upstream of the conduit entrance, thei 
occur to about elevation 57 feet, mean sea lev 

Alternatives investigated to provide project design 
were not economically feasible or justified. C<> 

conduit to convey excess floodflows to the Connecticut I . ed 

as the most feasible and economic a] plan. Of prime In 



determining the size of the auxiliary conduit is the coincident tailwater 
elevation upstream of the headwalls on the North and South Branches. 

Initial studies indicated that due to physical limitations it would 
not be possible to construct an auxiliary conduit large enough to carry 
the project design flood by gravity flow. In order to determine an 
adequate and economical size for the auxiliary conduit, an analysis 
was made of surcharging the conduit system and modifying the peak 
inflow by the valley storage in the North and South Branches, The 
existing South Branch headwall and conduit were structurally designed 
for 10 feet of surcharge which is equivalent to elevation 54. 5 feet, 
mean sea level, at the conduit entrance. A minimum freeboard of 2. 5 
feet would result in a maximum ponding elevation of 52 feet, mean sea 
level. To be compatible with conditions on the South Branch, the head- 
wall at the North Branch conduit entrance would be at the same eleva- 
tion. 

Plans involving alternative sizes of auxiliary conduit were made 
to determine the effect of varying diameters relative to the reduction 
of flood damages and ponding elevations at the headwalls. Studies con- 
sidering estimated costs, benefits and excess benefits for 20, 22, 24, 26 
and 30-foot tunnel diameters are shown in Table 1. The increase in 
size of the auxiliary conduit would lower the maximum elevation and 
storage in the headpools. 

Auxiliary conduit sizes less than 20 feet in diameter were 
examined but considered not feasible to use as alternatives. The in- 
crease in static head and surcharge pressure would require extensive 
modifications and in some cases reconstruction of the existing rec- 
tangular twin -barrelled conduit to provide a structurally stable conduit. 
Total project cost would increase almost 50% ($25, 000, 000) over the 
current project cost utilizing an auxiliary conduit less than 20 feet in 
diameter. An alternative plan of this concept or magnitude is not prac- 
tical or justified. No excess benefits would be derived. 

Conduit sizes 20 to 22 feet in diameter would increase the head- 
pool elevation above 52 feet, msl and project costs would increase 
considerably to include reconstruction of the South Branch headwall, 
construction of the North Branch headwall and dike at a higher elevation, 
reinforce the stability of existing conduit sections, construction of the 
proposed conduit extensions relative to the added surcharge pressure 
and construction of street gates and dikes in the headpool areas to provide 
effective flood control for the overall project. In addition, lands and 
damages and relocations would be required in the headpool areas. 

30 



» 



Max. Headpool Elev. 



Ft. m. s. 1. ) 



Federal: 



First Cost 

Int. During Const. 

Total Investment 

Non-Federal: 
First Cost (2) 
Int. During Const. 
Total Investment 

Annual Charges : 
Federal: 
Int. & Amortization 

Non-Federal: 



Int. &: Amortization 
Major R epl. 
Maint. & Oper. 
Total Non-Federal: 

TOTAL ANNUAL COST 

TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFITS 
EXCESS BENEFITS 
B/C RATIO 



TABLE 1 



AUXILIARY CONDUIT ALTERNATIVE SIZES 
SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 
(In Thousands) 



DIAMETER OF AUXILIARY CONDUIT 
20 FT: 22 FT. 24' FT. 26 FT. 50 FT. 



53. 



50, 900 

2,481 

53, 381 



2, 000 

98 

2, 098 



1,809 



(1) 



51. 8 



51,400 
2, 500 



50. 3 



54,700 
2, 666 



49. 4 



58,400 
2,847 



1, 600 

78 

1, 678 



1,826 



1, 600 
78 



1, 600 
78 



1,678 1,678 



1,943 2,075 



48. 



65, 300 
3^18 3 



53,900 57,366 61,247 68,483 



1, 600 

78_ 

1, 678 



2, 320 



71 


57 


57 


57 


57 


40 


40 


40 


40 


40 


50 


50 


50 


50 


50 


161 


147 


147 


147 


147 


1, 970 


1, 973 


2, 090 


2, 222 


2, 467 


2,918 


2, 948 


2, 983 


3, 01 3 


3, 065 


948 


975 


893 


791 




1. 48 


1. 49 


1. 43 


1. 36 


1. 24 



1) Includes the increase in costs for modifications to existing flood control works 
and for additional street gates and dikes required in the headpool areas. 

2) Lands and damages and relocations. 



H 



The results of the studies are presented graphically on the fol- 
lowing chart which shows a curve of excess annual benefits for various 
sizes of auxiliary conduit. The curve indicates that the point of maxi- 
mization of benefits would be achieved with a 22 -foot diameter auxiliary 
conduit. For any size conduit less than 20 feet in diameter, the excess 
benefits would be zero or negative. 

The 22-foot diameter conduit selected would provide a high degree 
of flood protection in the densely populated and developed urban area of 
Hartford over the life of the project as well as reduce flood damages 
and losses in the headpool areas while maintaining a water surface 
elevation at or below 52 feet mean sea level which is compatible with 
existing conditions on the South Branch Park River. Further, the in- 
crease of one foot or more in water surface elevation in the headpool 
areas would inundate surrounding lowlands damaging valuable com- 
mercial and residential properties, railroad lines and roadways. 
This would decrease the business activity in the area, restrict access 
and cause extreme congestion by the loss of using the principal high- 
ways and roadways. With the construction of the 22-foot conduit, only 
minor modifications would be required by local interests to prevent 
flood damages in the headpool areas from a project design flood. The 
22-foot diameter auxiliary conduit is recommended also as having the 
least social, economical and environmental impact on the headpool areas 
as well as imposing the least detrimental effects on the activities in the 
Hartford areas. 

21. PUMPING STATIONS. - The Riverside pumping station would have 
a design capacity of 180 cfs equivalent to a runoff rate of 1. inch per 
hour from the 171 acre low level interior area. The Armory pumping 
station designed and partially constructed by the Connecticut State 
Highway Department and the Greater Hartford Flood Commission would 
have a capacity of 170 cfs to control runoff from about 8 acres of high- 
way area, 14 acres of low level interior land area and flows from a 
combined storm and sewer line, In recent years the storm and sewer 
line was constructed to by-pass the pumping station and convey flows to a 
newly constructed sewerage treatment plant. The total design capacity 
of 350 cfs for both stations is considered to be more than required to 
control runoff in the project area. During the preparation of project 
design and Phase II GDM, a detailed study of the pumping requirements 
will be made and the design capacity of the pumping stations will be re- 
analyzed to determine the optimum use for each station. 

Pumping will alleviate the occurrence of ponding of interior 
runoff from the low area or overflows from the high level areas 
during abnormally high flows in the rivers. With 

32 



* 



> I- 

«- a: 

o 



UJ 

> 

3 
O 
to 

CO K 



u_ 

z 

UJ 
00 

CO 
CO 
LU 

o 

X 

UJ 



X 

u 

< 
2 




(000'lt) S1IJ3N38 SS30X3 



the enclosure of the Park River in a conduit, the area adjacent to 
and over the river will increase in value due to economic development. 
In general, the area is comprised of lands below the 52 feet mean sea 
level contour. It is quite flat and development is quite evenly pro- 
portioned between interstate and local highway systems, moderate com- 
mercial and residential buildings, open fields and renewal areas. It 
is not economically feasible to reserve these areas for temporary stor- 
age of interior runoff during flood periods. 

Interior drainage from approximately 1, 380 acres is intercepted 
by the Park River and its branches between the entrances to the exist- 
ing North and South Branch conduits and the entrance to the existing 
Park River conduit. Interior drainage facilities for the project would 
connect to and supplement the interior drainage system designed for the 
already completed conduit sections. The area controlled by the River- 
side pumping station is comprised of 1209 acres of high level area 
which would be drained by pressure conduits during Park River flood 
periods and 171 acres of low level area which will drain by gravity 
during normal periods but will require pumping during periods of 
abnormally high flows in the river. As presently designed, the Armory 
pumping station would control about 22 acres of rapid runoff. The 
pumping stations are needed as an integral part of the Park River local 
protection works to realize the full flood control benefits of the project. 

22. PROJECT FORMULATION. - Construction of the Park River Local 
Protection Project represents the optimum development for the pre- 
servation and enhancement of desirable features of the urban environ- 
ment. Officials of the City of Hartford are very much concerned with 
the probability of again suffering extensive flood damages as experienced 
during the 1955 record flood or possibly from a storm similar in mag- 
nitude as that produced recently by Hurricane "Agnes". On numerous 
occasions local officials have indicated their willingness and readiness 
to financially participate in the construction of the project including 
extending the twin-box conduit north of Farmington Avenue as recom- 
mended in this report. The flood control features comprise the most 
feasible and economical solution to the flood problem. The variation 
of sizes for the auxiliary conduit was studied and, as previously ex- 
plained, the 22-foot diameter tunnel will provide a high degree of pro- 
tection for the densely urbanized community of Hartford and represents 
the maximum excess of tangible benefits over costs. During a project 
design flood, with the Connecticut River at a stage of 30 feet, m. s. 1. , 
the water surface at the conduit extension entrances would not exceed 
elevation 52 feet, mean sea level. The recommended project as modi- 
fied is economically justified with a benefit to cost ratio of 1. 5 to 1. 0. 

34 



J. COORDINATION 

23. COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES. - The following Fed- 
eral, state and local agencies were asked to furnish their views and 
letters of comment received are included in Appendix A. 

U. S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service 

U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 

U. S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service 

U. S. Dept. of Housing h Urban Development 

U. S. Public Health Service 

U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 

U. S. Dept. of Commerce, New England Regional Commission 

New England River Basins Commission 

Conn. Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Highways 

Conn. Dept. of Environmental Protection 

Conn. Dept. of Public Works 

Conn. Dept. of Agriculture 

Conn. State Dept. of Health 

Metropolitan District, Hartford, Conn. 

Greater Hartford Flood Commission 

Hartford Redevelopment Agency 

Mayor, City of Hartford 

City Manager, City of Hartford 

24. SUMMARY OF VIEWS. - Comments received from the above 
agencies are favorable to the project plan and were given consideration 
in the preparation of this report. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, coordinated their reviews with 
the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the National Marine Fisheries Ser- 
vice, and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and 
indicated that there would be no enhancement opportunities or adverse 
fish and wildlife effects associated with the project. 

The U. S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service noted that 
no historical sites were situated in the project area. The U. S. Dept. 
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service described the Location and e 
tent of channel improvements upstream of the pr> t ite and will con- 

tinue to coordinate their flood control works in the Park Rivet 
with the Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Dept. of Transport I , Fed- 
eral Highway Administration and the Connecticut Bureau oi Higl 

35 



stated concern for the techniques to be used in the construction of 
the auxiliary conduit under Interstate Route 91 and other roadways 
and requested plans during the detailed design stage. 

The Conn. Dept. of Environmental Protection recognizes the 
need for the project and expressed their intent to provide formal ap- 
proval of the agreement. The Hartford Metropolitan District suggested 
future conferences and coordination to exchange views on detailed de- 
sign of utility and drainage facilities. The Greater Hartford Flood 
Commission again expressed their intentions to participate in the con- 
struction of the project and recommended that the conduit be extended 
north of Farmington Avenue. 

25. U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. - Advance 
copies of the Phase I - Plan Formulation report including the En- 
vironmental Statement dated 16 July 1971 were submitted to the Re- 
gional Administrator, Region 1, Environmental Protection Agency, for 
review. Their letter of comment dated 14 March 1973 is included in 
Appendix A as Exhibit 1. It was noted that the various impacts of the 
construction works such as noise and dust pollution as well as increased 
siltation caused by construction equipment and traffic congestion should 
be given consideration. Mitigative measures to minimize the adverse 
impact of the construction works on the local environment will be con- 
sidered during project detailed design studies and included in the updated 
Final Environmental Statement. 

K. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

26. ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS. - The proposed project 
is located entirely within the city limits of Hartford, the capital and 
most populous city in the State of Connecticut. The natural environ- 
ment has virtually disappeared as is the case in most similar areas. 
The pavement, residences, office buildings, industrial and business 
structures, highways and coincidental appurtenances typify the urban 
environment present in any large city. 

The Park River once flowed in an open channel through this urban 
environment. Some of the river was later inclosed in conduits. There 
now are gaps between the sections of conduit, allowing the river to flow 
through deep open channels. The river water is a very poor quality, 
degraded by factory discharges, surface runoff, debris and various 
pollutants. Seven children lost their lives in the open channel between 
1942 and 1968. Existing conditions result in low aesthetic values and 
high hazard potential. 



There is a reach of about 1, 600 feet of open channel between 
completed conduit Sections 3 and 6 presently causing erosion and en- 
dangering a high river bank within the public Pope Park area and ad- 
jacent streets. The park has been closed to the public due to the 
hazardous conditions along the river bank. 

At present, the reach of the North Branch Park River extending 
northward from the completed conduit Section 8 at Farmington Avenue 
is open and winding. It meanders through an area to the rear of several 
apartment and professional buildings. During times of high water, 
flooding occurs along this reach, with resulting erosion of streambanks. 
The stream bed and banks are a depository for rubbish and junk carried 
there by the stream and discarded by people. Consequently, the area 
is unsightly and a continual source of aggravation to the users of the 
adjacent land. 

27. PROJECT IMPACT . - The area involved in the Park River con- 
duit project is already committed to urban uses. There is no possi- 
bility of a reversal of the urbanization process and a restoration of the 
natural environment which once characterized the area. However, it 
is possible to improve the aesthetics of the project area. An improve- 
ment will result from the elimination of unsightly and dangerous open 
channels, from project features of competent architectural and land- 
scape design, and from the inclusion of public use features in the proj- 
ect wherever possible. 

Indirectly, the project will have beneficial effects on the adjacent 
areas by providing an environment more conducive to businesses, rec- 
reation and residential uses because of the elimination of the open chan- 
nels. It will be possible not only to reopen the park, closed down be- 
cause of the conditions cited above, but also, it is intended to blend the 
park area with the project area. The local economy should benefit by 
the improved aesthetics in the area. 

The pumping stations and headwall will be designed primarily 
according to the practical demands of the project but attention will he- 
given to aesthetic details to provide architectural compatability with the 
surrounding area particularly in light of the urban environme 

The auxiliary conduit would he installed almost < omplctcly under 
existing streets. Therefore, no impairment of the aesth-t 
area above the conduit is foreseen. The proposed netvt nduits, 

coupled with the pumping stations and headwall wou. il 

beneficial results: 

M 



a. Minimization of the danger of flooding in the low-lying areas 
of Hartford, the destruction of developed properties and the existing 
hazards to life. 

b. An upgrading of the urban environment due to the elimination 
of the open channels. 

c The improvement of pedestrian traffic conditions with the 
addition of walkways and benches over the new conduits. 

A definite improvement environmentally will result from the 
project in the reach north of Farmington Avenue. A winding, debris- 
laden stream which continually floods, causing erosion and damage to 
adjoining parking areas will be contained. The land area made avail- 
able over, and adjacent to the conduit (Section 9) will be graded to blend 
with the contiguous land areas, will be landscaped as suitable and will 
become a useful and visually pleasing asset. 

During project construction noise, increased siltation and dust 
resulting from moving equipment and traffic congestion will be minimized 
and controlled as much as possible. Mitigative measures will be speci- 
fied to minimize adverse impact on the local environment. 

28. PUBLIC USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS. - During Phase I 
studies and investigations, consideration was given to the possibility 
that certain areas along the conduit right-of-way could be developed for 
certain limited public use activities. The matter was discussed with 
city of Hartford officials, with the intent of determining the attitude of 
the city toward such public use development and also the status of land 
within the right-of-way with respect to present or future proposed uses. 
The attitude of the city officials was favorable, and it was found that cer- 
tain project areas might be available for limited public use development. 

The types of public use development under consideration are small 
sit-in and walk through parks and landscaped connecting walks adjacent 
to existing park areas and other similar development. Possibilities for 
such development are limited because of the need for committing avail- 
able areas over the conduit to parking and other practical uses. The 
engineering necessities arising during final design of the conduit itself 
are also limiting factors; for example: the final cross sections of the 
right-of-way with the conduit in place; the depth of fill (including top- 
soil) over the concrete conduit; cross sectional slope steepness; and 
surface drainage requirements. 



Topsoiling, seeding, and landscape planting will be an integral 
part of the design to insure that the completed project is as visually- 
acceptable as possible. Special attention will be afforded the reach 
of the river extending northerly from Farmington Avenue, so that the 
completed project will be compatible with the adjacent apartment 
buildings and adjoining lands. The lands within the conduit right-of-way 
will be designed and landscaped for harmonious blending with the area. 

29. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. - In compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, a draft of the Environmental 
Impact Statement on the environmental aspects of the Park River Local 
Protection Project was submitted to the President's Council on Environ- 
mental Quality on 7 April 1971 and the final statement filed on 1 Sep- 
tember 1971. A copy of the Environmental Statement dated 16 July 1971 
is included as an attachment. 

L. PROJECT PLAN 

30. GENERAL. - The recommended plan of modifying the existing 
flood control project for Hartford, Connecticut is shown on Plate 2-2 
consisting of conduit extension sections 2,4, 5,7 and 9; a junction 
structure; a concrete headwall and earth dike at the entrance to section 
9 on the North Branch; an auxiliary conduit from the junction structure 
to the Connecticut River; and pumping stations near Riverside Street 
and the State Armory. 

With the recommended plan of flood protection, occurrence of 
a standard project flood would result in ponding over a total of about 
500 acres of land upstream of the conduit entrances. The water sur- 
face at the North and South Branch conduit extension entrances would 
rise to elevation 52 feet, mean sea level. Local interests will be re- 
quired to maintain present volumes of storage above the conduit 
tension entrances through effective control and monitoring of the existing 
zoning and encroachment lines. 

31. CONDUIT EXTENSIONS . - The conduit extension wot 

sections of twin-rectangular conduit (section.- \) enclosing .',569 

feet of the Park River; one section of twin-rectangu 1 ion 

5) 103 feet in length on the South Branch; and two s< n- 

rectangular conduit (sections 7 &r 9) enclosing 1,979 fe< 
Branch. Conduit extensions are shown in profile 



39 



Conduit sections will be reinforced concrete structures as 
shown in detail on Plate 2-4 and 2-5. The inside dimensions of each 
barrel of the conduit for sections 2 and 4 will be 34 feet wide by 26. 5 
feet high; for section 5, 36 feet wide by 27. 5 feet high; and for sections 
7 and 9, 22 feet wide by 25 feet high. 

32. JUNCTION STRUCTURE. - The junction structure, to be con- 
structed of reinforced concrete, will serve to combine the flows from 
the North and South Branches and distribute them to the Park River 
and auxiliary conduits and thence to the Connecticut River. A model 
study is currently in progress by contract with Alden Research Labora- 
tories, Worcester Polytechnic Institute to determine the shape and 
size of the junction structure. 

33. NORTH BRANCH HEADWALL AND DIKE. - A reinforced concrete 
headwall will be constructed at the entrance to conduit section 9. An 
earth dike will be constructed between the headwall and high ground on 
either side of the conduit. The top elevation of the headwall and dike 
will be 54. 5 feet, msl, the same as that of the headwall and dike con- 
structed at the entrance to the South Branch conduit, and will provide 

2. 5 feet of freeboard. 

34. AUXILIARY CONDUIT . - The auxiliary conduit will be a 22 -foot 
inside diameter, circular cross-section reinforced concrete structure 
extending from the junction structure to the Connecticut River by way 
of Park Street, Wyllys Street, and Charter Oak Avenue, a total length 
of 9, 100 feet. Plan, profile and sections are shown on Plate 2-6. 
About 6, 000 feet of the conduit, principally under Park Street, will be 
a concrete-lined tunnel in bedrock. The remaining concrete conduit 
will be constructed by tunneling in earth and by open cut method. The 
lower end of the conduit will pass under highway 1-91 and the existing 
Corps of Engineers' floodwall at the Connecticut River. 

35. RIVERSIDE PUMPING STATION . - A pumping station will be lo- 
cated along the bank of the Park River adjacent to conduit section 4 
in the vicinity of Riverside Street. Runoff will be conducted to the 
pumping station by pipes paralleling both segments of completed and 
the proposed conduit extension sections. 

36. ARMORY PUMPING STATION. - The existing substructure for 
the Armory pumping station is located on the left bank of the Park 
River adjacent to the completed conduit section 1 and east of the State 
Armory. Work accomplished by the Connecticut State Highway De- 
partment and the Greater Hartford Flood Commission includes the sub- 
structure, four sluice gates and part of the interior drainage system. 

40 



Project features to complete the pumping station consist of the super- 
structure, pumps and equipment and part of the interior drainage sys- 
tem to control runoff. 

37. LANDS AND DAMAGES. - The proposed sections of conduit will 
primarily fall within the banks of the Park River and the North Branch 
of the Park River, except that approximately 400 feet of the extension 
above Farmington Avenue will be located under private parking areas 
in order to eliminate an ox-bow in the North Branch River. The 
auxiliary conduit will be constructed principally within street rights- 
of-way, Wherever either conduit passes under private property, per- 
manent easements will be secured. 

The entire project will require that about 1Z acres be taken in 
permanent easement of which about 9. 5 acres are required for the 
auxiliary conduit subsurface easement. An additional area of about 
9. 5 acres has been acquired in fee by the Greater Hartford Flood Com- 
mission. Approximately 24 acres will be required for temporary con- 
struction easements of which about 9 acres are of public ownership and 
15 acres of private ownership. A two-story brick garage will be ac- 
quired and five paved parking areas will be affected during construction. 

38. RELOCATIONS. - Construction of the sections of conduit extensions 
will require the removal of the Broad Street, Flower Street, Laurel 
Street and Farmington Avenue bridges. Upon completion of the r,on< uit, 
the highway pavement, sidewalks, drains and other appurtenances v ill 
be replaced in the same general locations with the grades adjusted to 
meet the changed conditions. The construction of Section 9 ( Far- 
mington Avenue) will require the relocation of a 54-inch sewi and 
portions of the 51 -inch and 27-inch sewer lines connecting to LL 54-inch 
line. At a number of locations, the drains, sewers, and utilities will be 
relocated outside the area required for construction of I 

M. COST ESTIMATES 

V). FIRST COSTS. - Unit prices used in i ad 

relocation costs are based on average bid prices f< 
same general area, adjusted to the 1973 price level. Va 

are based on updati recenl 

ties at the a elude 

and b requi red u ■'■-■'■■. 

'wance of 20% for i . 

and 

ms based 



and comparison with similar projects in the area. The total first 
cost of the project is estimated at $53, 000, 000. A summary of 
costs for project features is given in Table 2 and a detailed break- 
down of quantities and unit prices is included in Appendix B. 

40. ANNUAL CHARGES. - Average annual charges also summarized 
in Table 2, are based on total investment costs including interest during 
construction and an interest rate of 3-1/4 percent amortized over the 
100-year assumed economic life of the project. The Greater Hartford 
Flood Commission furnished satisfactory assurances by letter dated 
15 April 1969 in conjunction with the Water Resources Council's policy 
on revised interest rate for water resources projects. (See Appendix 
A, Exhibit 1 5. ) Allowances are made for costs of maintenance and 
operation and for interim replacement of equipment having an estimated 
life of less than 100 years. 

TABLE 2 

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND ANNUAL CHARGES 



(1973 Price Level) 



Project Features 



Estimated Cost 



Land and Damages 
Relocations 
Pumping Stations 
Conduit Extensions 
Auxiliary Conduit 
Engineering & Design 
Supervision & Administration 

Total Estimated First Costs 



$ 1,100,000 

500,000 

1,400, 000 

17, 500, 000 

25, 300, 000 

3,900, 000 

3, 300, 000 

$ 53, 000, 000 



Annual Charges 



Interest and Amortization 
Maintenance and Operation 
Major Replacements 

TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 



$ 1,883,000 
50,000 
40, 000 

$ 1,973,000 



41. COST APPORTIONMENT . - First costs to local interests are 
estimated at $1, 600, 000 including lands and damages and relocations, 
The Federal first cost of the project is estimated at $51, 400, 000. 
Annual costs for maintenance and operation of the project which are 



42 



items of local responsibility are estimated at $90, 000 including 
$40, 000 for interim replacements of equipment. 

42. COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES. - The current cost estimate of 
$53, 000, 000 reflects an increase of $1, 200, 000 since the last reported 
estimate in the PB-3 of 1 July 1972 which amounted to $51, 800, 000. 
Table 3 outlines and explains the changes. 






CO 

w 

PQ 
< 



oo 
H 
H 
< 



H 
oo 
H 

O 

O 

OO 
n 

< 

o 
o 



CD 

d 
a) 

rd 
U 



*h 

o 



o 



» 
Ph 



3 
o 
o 
Q 

+j 
cj 

CD 

■I — > 

o 

)-h 

Ph 



CD 

h 

+j 

rd 

CD 

o 

CD 

O" 
rH 

0, 



o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


(M 


CM 


o 


o 


o 


r~ 


CO 


^> 


CM 


vO 


lT> 

* 
1—1 


CM 
CM 


xO 


«tf 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 

CM 



•00- 



I + + 



I + + 



CM 



o o o o o o o 

o o o o o o o 

o o o o o o o 

o o cT o" o o o 

o o o o o o o 

h i/l ^ Kl (O O CI 



r- Lfi CO m 
^ CM 



-be- 



o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


c 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


CM 


00 


o 


o 


o 


CO 


r- 


i — 1 


CM 


oo 


o 


un 


CM 


00 


^, 






•» 


* 


* 


«* 


>-H 






1 — 1 


r>- 

CM 


CO 


CM 



-00- 



o o o o o o o 
o o o o o o o 
o o o o o o o 



o o o o o o o 

co i> oo o ^o o r*- 

vO r-i ^ "tf CO O O 

■t « n •* 

O vO fM — i 



-fe^- 



co 
CD 
bD 
cd 

s 

cd 
Q 



'/J 



cd 
d oo X 



d 

ojO 
• H c 7 

d °2 o3 





u 



w 



Ml 
d 



Cfl 



co O R d 

T) O ?TtJ 



d 
3 o 



u 

CD 

> 

X be cu 



CCJ (V) 

r-l C 



J « On u <; W CO 



rj 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 
o 

CO 
U0 

-00- 



o 
o 
o 

o 

o 

00 



oe- 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 



oe- 



H 

00 

o 
u 

< 

H 

o 



en O 

Cd -M 

£ <D 

CM *ti 

£ 

^ u 

i en 

cq <d 

& 3 

CD « 

cd m 

-M O 

Pi o 

u ^> 

73 rd 

U X) 

•^ d . 

^ en 

fn n (D 

a W en 

.2 w » 

^ CD CJ 

d A d 

t ^ 

? . ccj 



CO 
CD 



CD 



3 "^ CD 

Cti vO 

^ ^H +J 

o 



cti 



2 o 

r-j m en 

d el 

O CD 



rt CD 



UJ (D " 

o CU en 

a a -a 

o > 



o 

U CO 5 
CD 



CD CJ 



rd 

H 



ccj CD 



r-l CM CO LO LO O r-l 
O O r-H r-l r-H CO CO 



bJO 



o 

HH 

CD 

rd 



CD 

d 

CD 

rH 

ccj 
CD 
cti 



CQ 

Ph 
CM 

r- 

o 



CD 

rCJ 



o 

rH 
HH 

CQ 

CD 

ox) 

a 

ccj 

rC 

u 



CM 



o 

•H 

o 

CD 

rH 



CD 

en 

CD 

rH 
CO 

CD 
O 

-H 
4-> 

o 

CCJ 

U 
(X 

-r-> 

CD 
U 

rH 

Pi 

u 
. H 

en g 
u 

ccj 



ccj 

rD 

en 
h-> 

en 

o 

CJ 

C 
o 

•H 
-M 
U 
Pi 
rH 
H-> 

en 
P! 

o 



en '£ 

•H c/) 

W CD 

r^ 

crj cn 

P! 

ccj U 
CD 

U ® 

rd 



cn 

g § 

O -rH 



If 

O CD 

Pi cn 
O C 



CD 
GO 



P» 
T3 
P! 

O 

Vh 

O 

P! 

o 



o *l 



coo 



pj 

U rS 

C -rH 

Q 

o d 
cn 

GJO CD 

Pi rH 
•H 

.2 o 

en +j 

P! rt 

+f 



PJ « 

° 11 

H-> CD 

cj bo 

CD d 

00 ccj 

o CJ 

+-> 

CD T3 

2 S 

en «o 

ap g 

CO -rH 

8 2 

cd Q. 

rrj CCJ 

Pi +J 

ccj C 
CD 



cn 

P! 
ccj 



P! 
ccj 

i— i 

Oh 

TJ 
CD 



00 

bD 
Pi 

rH 

a 

s 

pi 



N Ph 



rH 

o 

rC 
+-> 
P) 

rd 

CD 

rCl 



rH 
O 

s 

rH 

< 



>+H P! 

o o 

H-> 13 

S » 

s s 

d. ^ 

^ CD 

<D en 

cn cti 

ccj cd 

CD rH 

rH O 

CJ CD 



CD "ij 



CD 

rd 

o -^ 

M ^H 

rn O 






•H Q^ 







^2 



rd ^ 

> 

. o 

H C 

rrH "J 

d >> 

O rQ 

U HO 

rH W 

d £ 

ccj £ 



44 



N. ECONOMICS 

43. GENERAL. - The city of Hartford, the most populous city in 
Connecticut, is the state Capitol and the financial and trade center 
of the state. With roots deep in both state and national history, it is 
one of the country's oldest cities and also one of its most attractive. 

Having a 1970 population of 158, 000, Hartford is the core city 
of an SMSA with over 660, 000 people and registering as 49th in popu- 
lation of all the SMSA's in the country. The economy of the SMSA has 
a broad base in manufacturing and finance, especially insurance, and 
in per capita income it ranks sixth in the country. The SMSA has one 
of the faster growth rates in population in the country (about 2. 5% com- 
pounded annually for the period 1950-1970) and is projected to continue 
to grow in both population and physical size. 

44. LAND USE. - Based on the 1970 Census, Hartford has a gross 
population density of 8,495 per square mile but the figure is misleading. 
With 2,765 acres of its area devoted to parks and 2,800 acres in the 
North and South Meadows area devoted to transportation, mixed govern- 
ment and commercial facilities, the true population density of the rest 

of the city is approximately 16, 000 per square mile. With such densities, 
developable land is at a premium and urban renewal, both public by the 
City's Redevelopment Administration and private under the auspices of 
major local banks and insurance companies, is a continuing process in 
Hartford. 

The portion of the Park River Basin in which the authorized proj- 
ect is to be constructed is prime land for such redevelopment. Other 
than the flood problem the area has advantages which few other secti 
of Hartford can approach. Running westerly approximately a mile from 
the grounds of the State House to the confluence of the Park River North 
and South Branches and then extending about a mile on the North Branch 
and a quarter of a mile on the South Branch, the flood plain is currently 
given over to an aging mix of commercial and industrial properties* Lo- 
cated only a three or four minute drive from Hartford's Central Business 
District and served by Interstate Highway 1-84 (access from the area at 
two locations) the area has a potential for much higher utilization of its 
land than is currently the case. Adding to its amenities the flood pi 
is bounded on the south by Pope Park, a large urban park of 73 acr< 
There are currently about 30 acres of cleared land (Underwood-Urb.ui 
Renewal Area) abutting the park planner Ly development by a 

private developer and the City's Redevelop ty. 



45. FLOOD LOSSES. - A field review of the flood loss potential of the 
Park River below the confluence of its north and south branches and 
along the lower reaches of its branches was carried out by damage 
analysts in the fall of 1972. The review found that the largest single 
source of loss at the time of the report on which the project document 
is based, a large industrial plant (Underwood Company) has been razed. 
The tract of land on which the plant stood has been acquired by one of 
the state's largest real estate developers. The land is currently zoned 
for industrial development but both the developer and the City's Re- 
development Agency are trying to change the entire area to commercial 
zoning permitting high rise apartment development, shopping center 
type development, or a mix of the two. Firm plans for the area are not 
completed at this time. 

The field review also found changes in use of two buildings and 
that another building had been razed and a new office building was being 
erected on its site. Near the confluence of the North and South Branches 
a new shopping center of 9 acres has been constructed and is subject 
to floods rarer than the 25 -year event. Total annual losses in the studied 
reaches of the river amount to $1,480, 000 under 1972 conditions. 

An analysis was made of the annual losses in the new 9-acre shop- 
ping center alone. Such annual losses amount to $85,400 or $9,490 an 
acre. It is realistic to assume that development in the Underwood-Urban 
Renewal area would have a loss potential at least equal to the shopping 
center, so that annual losses for the 30 acres in the area feasible for 
development will amount to $284, 700. Development is expected to start 
concurrently with the flood control project and be completed in 6 years, 
so that the average annual equivalent value of the loss with interest at 
3-1/4% would be $262,200. 

For the properties other than in the Urban Renewal area, the loss 
potential will increase with time as the forces of competition and the 
demand for land generated by the population densities previously noted 
will mean a constant up-grading of properties to attain highest and best 
use of the land. In the Connecticut River Comprehensive Report (1970) 
the growth in flood loss potential was equated to the growth in real in- 
come in the area. For the Connecticut portion of the basin, the average 
annual equivalent value of the growth in real income was a factor of 
0. 393 using an interest rate of 4-7/8%. With an interest rate of 3-1/4 
percent, this factor would of course be higher in any event but the lo- 
cational and amenity values of this area are, as previously noted, so 
high that a much greater growth factor is in order. Losses are pro- 
jected to grow at a rate equal to 30% of the growth in personal income 
over the next 50 years. 

46 



Hartford is in the Water Resources Planning Area 107, Hart- 
ford-Springfield of the North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study 
for which personal income has been projected in constant 1958 dollars 
from 1970 through Z020. This data used in projecting losses with an 
average annual equivalent value of the growth derived at 0. 66 amounts 
to an increase in loss potential of $976,800. Total annual losses in the 
studied reaches of the Park River amount to $2, 719, 000 consisting of 
$1,480,000 to current development, $976,800 average annual equivalent 
losses due to future growth and $262,200 average annual equivalent 
losses to development in the Underwood-Urban Renewal area. 

46. BENEFITS. - Annual benefits are measured by the difference be- 
tween average annual losses under conditions without flood protection 
and those that would result under conditions expected over the project 
life after its construction. Closing the gaps in the existing conduit and 
provision of an auxiliary conduit 25 feet in diameter to carry the excess 
flows in the larger floods would accrue flood damage prevention benefits 
annually of $2, 450, 000 consisting of $1, 340, 000 to present damages, 
$884, 000 in average annual equivalent values due to projected growth 
and $226, 000 in average annual equivalent value in the Underwood-Urban 
Renewal area. 

As an index of the effects of floods exceeding the capacity of the 
existing conduit and flooding downtown Hartford, data was obtained 
from the Hartford Clearing House on the dollar volume of daily trans- 
actions. At the present time the daily clearings are in excess of 
$30, 000, 000. 

A flood of a magnitude which exceeded the conduit capacity would 
take from 5 to 7 days to recede in the North and South Meadow areas 
of Hartford. Over and above the damages caused by the flood in the 
flood plain proper, there would be a large decrease in the business 
activity of Hartford because of the lack of access from the east of Hart- 
ford and the extreme congestion caused by the loss of use of the area's 
principal north-south route through the Meadows. This decrease would 

lirectly measured by the clearing house receipts. While it is esti- 
mated that some 90 percent of the decreased activity would represent 
simply a deferral, the other 10 percent would be lost forever. There- 
lore, such a flood would cause business losses in 1 1 m of $1 5, 000, 000 

21, 000, 000 over and above the losses in the t ilain. On an an- 

nual basis this amounts to $180,000. Construct! the auxiliary conduit 

would prevent these losses. 

47 



In the reaches of the stream between Broad Street and Capitol 
Avenue on the Park River and between Laurel Street and Interstate 
Route 1-84 on the North Branch, the area over the conduit can satisfy 
an urgent need for parking for employees of the industries and com- 
mercial ventures along the river. This use is incidental to normal conduit 
usage. Over 10 acres of space formerly used for parking in this area 
has been taken by the State for construction of Interstate Route 1-84. 
The State Highway Department and the Hartford-Traffic Commission 
have already entered into an agreement whereby space under the over- 
passes and interchanges on Route 1-84 will be leased to the City on 
nominal terms and be adapted to parking. This will do little to alleviate 
the parking problem because of the various configurations and limited 
amount of such space. Moreover, the locations at interchanges and local 
street over -passes will aggravate the traffic problem on the local ways 
because of access and egress from the parking areas into congested 
traffic. 

An investigation was made into the rate of annual earnings for 
parking space for several New England cities including Hartford, as 
a measure of the value of the parking space available on top of the con- 
duit. Information was received from State and municipal authorities 
and private operators on rates of return from public metered lots leased 
to private operators and privately-owned and operated facilities. The 
annual rate varied from $. 45 a square foot for metered parking in a 
Boston suburb to $3. 00 per square foot for private lots in Boston. In 
Hartford, the net annual return per square foot for parking amounts 
to $1. 00 under current conditions. There are 160, 000 square feet of 
conduit surface on which parking will be available. The estimated annual 
benefit amounts to $160, 000. 

The total tangible annual benefits to the project amount to 
$2, 790, 000 based on the provision of a 25-foot diameter auxiliary con- 
duit. Adjustments to estimated losses in the headpool areas were made 
to increase the storage pool elevation from 49. 8 feet to 51. 8 feet, mean 
sea level and provide a 22 -foot auxiliary conduit. Negative benefits 
were derived and deducted from the $2, 790, 000. The adjusted total 
tangible annual benefits to the recommended project providing a 22-foot 
diameter auxiliary conduit amount to $2, 740, 000. 

47. REDEVELOPMENT BENEFITS. - Senate Document No. 97 of the 
87th Congress directs that where areas have been designated as Re- 
development Areas by the Redevelopment Administration, the project 
benefits shall be considered as increased by the value of the labor and 
other resources required for project construction and expected to be used 



48 



in project operations, project maintenance and added area employ- 
ment during the life of the project to the extent that such labor and 
resources would - in the absence of the project - be unutilized or under- 
utilized. 

The City of Hartford has been designated as a Title IV Redevelop- 
ment Area under P. L. 89-136 by the Economic Development Adminis- 
tration of the U. S. Department of Commerce. A sizeable proportion 
of the construction industry's work force is unemployed and the project 
will draw its workers from this pool. 

The records of this office indicate that on the average civil works 
project, the labor cost approximates 27 percent of total construction 
cost. It is noted that a large part of this project consists of a tunnel 
which normally requires a special work crew so the total cost is not to 
be used. However, only about half of the tunnel will be driven, the rest 
will be cut and cover or normal construction. The construction cost in- 
volved will therefore be $20 million of normal construction and one-half 
of the $25 million tunnel cost or a total of $32. 5 million. The estimated 
labor component is 27 percent of $32. 5 million or $8. 775 million. 

It is regular practice for a contractor to bring a skeleton crew of 
his own men on to a job and fill the rest of his requirements from the 
local labor pool. It is estimated that 75 percent of the laborers will be 
locally hired for this project. While not all of the labor put to work 
will come from the rolls of the unemployed, the jobs that they leave will 
be filled by people from the unemployed or under-employed rolls so that 
the entire 75 percent is used. It is estimated that the work will take 
three years to complete. With interest at 3-1/4 percent the derivation 
of the annual redevelopment benefit is as folio 

$8. 775 x . 75 = $6. 58125 million 
1st yr. 1. 58125 x PW 1 ^ . 968 5 1, 5 31,490 

2nd yr. 2. 5 x PW 2 = . 938O = 2, 345, 000 
3rd yr. 2. 5 x PW3 = . 908 5 - 2,271, 200 

Total P. W. $6, 147, 690 

Annual Benefit $6,147,69" -1/4%- LOO yr a. )• 033883 

$208, 302 

Called $208, 000 



49 



A benefit for unemployed labor put to work for maintenance and 
operation of the completed project is not claimed as the city will do 
this with their own regular force. 

48. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS. - A summary of the total average annual 
benefits creditable to the project for flood control based on completing the 
conduit extensions, a 22-foot diameter auxiliary conduit and appurtenant 
works, are set forth below: 

Benefit Category Amount 

Flood Damages Prevented $2,450,000 

Business Activity 180,000 

Parking Facilities 160, 000 

Total average annual benefits $2, 790, 000 

providing a 25-foot dia. aux- 
iliary conduit 

Negative benefits based on es- 
timated additional losses in 
headpool areas 50, 000 

Adjusted total average annual 

benefits providing a 22 -foot dia. 

auxiliary conduit $2, 740, 000 

Redevelopment Benefits 208, 000 



TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL 

BENEFITS $2,948,000 

49. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. - A summary of average annual costs, 
average annual benefits and the benefit-cost ratio for the Park River 
Local Protection Project is shown in Table 4. 

TABLE 4 





Costs 


SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 


First 


















Federal 








$ 


51, 


400, 


000 




Non-Fed 


eral 








1, 


600, 


000 






Total 


First 


Cost 


$ 


53, 


000, 


000 



50 



Annual Costs 



Federal $ 1,826,000 

Non-Federal 147,000 



Total Annual Costs $ 1,973,000 
Annual Benefits $ 2,948,000 

Benefit-Cost Ratio 1. 5 to 1 . 



O. LOCAL COOPERATION 

50. GENERAL, - In accordance with Section 3 of the 1936 Flood Con- 
trol Act, as amended, local interests will be required to provide the 
items of local cooperation as outlined in the Project Document and 
included in Paragraph 4 of this report. Three additional requirements 
of local cooperation and participation responding to changes since 
project authorization are that local interests will replace the roadway, 
walks and utilities at Farmington Avenue, alter and relocate buildings, 
utilities, highways and facilities necessary for project construction, 
and comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, P. L. 91-646. 

51. LOCAL ASSURANCES. - A request for formal assurances from 
the Greater Hartford Flood Commission and the State of Connecticut 
will be made after approval of the Phase II - General Design Memoran- 
dum. Construction of the Park River Local Protection Project will 
require non-Federal interests furnish assurances imposed by the au- 
thorizing document and current additional requirements satisfactory 

to the Secretary of the Army that they will: 

a. Provide, without cost to the United States, all lands, ease- 
ments, and rights-of-way required for construction and operation of the 
works, including lands for pumping stations and spoil disposal ar 

b. Hold and save the United States free- from damage due to tin- 
construction works; 

Maintain and operate .ill the works after completi 

cordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary \rmy; 

51 



d. Upon completion of the conduit construction, replace pave- 
ments, sidewalks, drainage and other appurtenances, including those 
at Broad Street, Flower Street, Laurel Street and Farmington Avenue , 
and bear the cost of removal, replacement, and modification to sewers, 
drains, utilities, or highways beyond the area required for excavation 
and construction of the projects; 

e. Prevent changes in the headpool ponding areas which would de- 
crease the effectiveness of the improvements and if ponding areas and 
capacities are impaired, promptly substitute equivalent storage capacity; 

f. Undertake all practical measures to prevent pollution from 
entering the Park River conduit system; 

g. Provide without cost to the United States all alterations and 
relocations of buildings, utilities, highways and other facilities made 
necessary by construction of the project; 

h. Comply with the requirements specified in Sections 210 and 
305 of Public Law 91-646, 91st Congress, approved 2 January 1971 
entitled "Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 
Policies Act of 1970. " 

52. MEASURES BY LOCAL INTERESTS . - 

a. Flood Plain Zoning. - Local interests have established zoning 
ordinances and encroachment lines up to elevation 52 feet, mean sea 
level, in the headpool areas above the conduit entrances on the North 
and South Branches. The Greater Hartford Flood Commission controls 
new developments, use, or filling within the designated flood plains. 
Permits for such action are issued and approved by the Commission and 
users of the flood plains must provide equivalent water storage capacity 
before encroaching upon the headpool ponding areas. 

b. Armory Pumping Station . - In addition to the construction of 
conduit Sections 1, 3, 6 and 8, the Connecticut State Highway Department 
and the Greater Hartford Flood Commission jointly constructed the 
substructure for the Armory Pumping Station including four sluice gates 
and a portion of the low-level drainage system at a cost of $233, 000. 
Since Section 2 of the conduit extension was not constructed and interior 
runoff would continue to flow into the open river section, the pumping 
station could not be utilized for flood control. Work was delayed pending 
construction of conduit Section 2. Completion of the Armory pumping 
station will be accomplished as part of the local flood protection works in 
conjunction with the construction of conduit Section 2. 

52 



c. Sanitary and Storm Sewers. - The Metropolitan District Com- 
mission and the city of Hartford have a continuing program, starting 
about ten years ago, of separating the sanitary sewers and the storm 
drains. The capacity of the existing sewage treatment plant was in- 
creased to handle larger flows resulting from heavy rainfall. These 
measures reduce pollution entering the Park River conduit system. 

d. Land Acquisition . - Real estate required for the construction 
of conduit extension sections 2,4, 5 and 7, the junction structure and the 
Riverside Street pumping station have been acquired by the Greater Hart- 
ford Flood Commission at a cost of about $300, 000. The Hartford Court 
of Common Council accepted and approved all the assessments of benefits 
and damages against the owners of properties affected by the extension 

of the Park River conduit. The layout of the land taking was adopted by 
the Court of Common Council on 9 October 1961 and amended on 8 Octo- 
ber 1962. 

53. VIEWS OF LOCAL INTERESTS . - Meetings have been held with 
local officials to keep them advised of the flood control features of the 
project, to exchange ideas, and to keep them informed of the total es- 
timated project cost and non-Federal costs. The general plan, project 
features and project costs were outlined and discussed at the Public 
Meeting held on 1 7 October 1972 in Hartford, Connecticut. 

Officials of the City of Hartford, the Greater Hartford Flood 
Commission and the Connecticut State Department of Environmental 
Protection have expressed their intentions and willingness to cooper 
and participate in the local flood protection works by their letters of 
concurrence included in Appendix A as Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 1 5« Local 
officials have also demonstrated outstanding initiative by constructing 
highway improvements and pumping stations compatible with Lon^ urm 
flood control measures. The strong interest indicated by local business 
and civic groups reinforces the intent of local officials to fulfil] the r 
quirements of local participation. 

54. NON-FEDERAL COSTS. - Non-Federal estimated co.-: 

$1, 600, 000 including $1, 100, 000 for lands and damages and $500, 000 
for relocations. Interest during construction is 1,000. 

Non-Federal interests will pay the total ag to 

$1,678,000. Upon completion, the local protection works wiU lin- 

tained and operated by the Greater Hartford Flood Comi I 

annual cost currently est at $90, 0" 

53 



The Greater Hartford Flood Commission located at 550 Main 
Street, Hartford, Connecticut, 06103, is responsible for fulfillment 
of the costs and requirements of local cooperation and participation 
acting in the name and on behalf of the City of Hartford. Honorable 
George A. Athansen, present Mayor of Hartford, desires construction 
and completion of the flood control system and has indicated his inten- 
tions of providing the necessary funds to the Commission. Local in- 
terests are very willing and able to meet the requirements and costs of 
non-Federal participation. 

P. DEPARTURES FROM THE AUTHORIZED PLAN 



55. DEPARTURES. - The following modifications and changes from 

the project document were made during investigations to reaffirm and/ or 
reformulate the authorized plan: 

a. The proposed headwall south of Farmington Avenue on the 
North Branch Park River was eliminated and conduit Section 9 has been 
added extending from the north end of Section 8 to a point about 935 
feet north of Farmington Avenue. A concrete headwall and earth dikes 
would be provided at the north end of conduit Section 9. 

b. The Armory pumping station designed and partially con- 
structed by the Connecticut State Highway Department and the Greater 
Hartford Flood Commission would be completed at Federal cost as part 
of the local flood protection works. Remaining work to be accomplished 
consists of the superstructure, furnishing and installing pumps and 
equipment, and constructing the unfinished portion of the drainage facili- 
ties. 

56. REASONS FOR DEPARTURES. 



a. The construction of conduit Section 9 would prevent flooding 
and damages along the reach of the North Branch Park River north of 
the Farmington Avenue roadway and along this main and busy traffic 
artery. In addition, the conduit extension would assure a high degree 
of flood protection to this remaining highly developed urban area. The 
inadequate waterway opening of the Farmington Avenue bridge would be 
removed eliminating a restriction to flood flows which otherwise would 
remain with construction of a headwall at the authorized location. 



54 



The Section 9 conduit extension with headwall and dikes in the 
upstream area in lieu of the authorized headwall at Farmington Avenue, 
would eliminate other economic and adverse social and environmental 
effects as well as disruptive project features subjecting the Corps to 
critical review. Justification of the conduit extension, Section 9, is 
included in Section I of this report, Plan Formulation. 

b. The Armory pumping station is needed as an integral part 
of the Park River local flood protection works to realize the full flood 
control benefits of the project. The pumping station would control 
runoff and interior drainage which would otherwise pond over the con- 
duit extensions and adjacent lands. Detailed studies will be made during 
the Phase II - GDM to determine the optimum use and capacity for the 
Armory Pumping Station in conjunction with the Riverside Pumping Station. 

Q. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS 



I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public 
interest, the documents concerning the proposed action, as well as the 
stated views of other interested agencies and the concerned public, 
relative to the various practicable alternatives in accomplishing local 
flood protection along the Park River and the North and South Branches 
in the city of Hartford, Connecticut. 

The possible consequences of these alternatives have been studied 
according to environmental, social well-being, and economic effects, 
including regional and national development and engineering feasibility. 

In evaluation, the following points were considered pertinent: 

a. Environmental Considerations. From an environmental stand- 
point, I have selected the optimum plan which will afford mure enhance- 
ment than adverse effects. The recommended project will have bene- 
ficial effects on flood control, water quality, pollution, aesthetics, Land 
traffic, recreation and urban development. The impact of the recom- 
mended project chi the natural environment would be negligible as most 
of the Park River is already enclosed in conduits. Only minimal vestij 
of a natural environment remain and no possibility ersal 

in the urbanization process and restoration of the natural i 
The connecting sections of conduit will Lm] ,u.ility of 

the area by eliminating open channels as well as have a beneficial effei t 
on the water quality by rutting down on material added t<> the river from 
erosion. ; :ommended project will a] by 

allowing more area available for business, r< tial 



or recreational areas. Overall, the project would minimize the 
danger of flooding in the low-lying areas of Hartford, along with the 
destruction and hazards associated with flooding; resulting in an up- 
grading of the urban environment and aesthetics as well as improving 
pedestrian and vehicular traffic over the conduits. The project offers 
no opportunity to benefit fish and wildlife resources, nor will it have 
any adverse effects upon these resources. No adverse environmental 
effects are known or anticipated if the project is implemented. How- 
ever, increased siltation and temporary turbidity is expected during 
construction. Measures will be taken to hold these effects to a minimum. 
In addition, some vegetation will be destroyed in the area of the chan- 
nel improvement and this condition will prevail until revegetation is 
accomplished. 

b. Social Well-Being Considerations . I find that the overriding 
social well-being consideration in the Hartford area is the reduction of 
the flood hazard that has caused tremendous damages and human suf- 
fering as well as restricted normal and higher utilization of land within 
the city. The recommended project will provide a high degree of pro- 
tection resulting in greater community cohesion and ensuring availa- 
bility of public facilities during times of flooding. Construction of the 
flood control improvements will make possible higher utilization of the 
area for the planned urban renewal and redevelopment projects which 
will improve the physical and social environment of not only the project 
site, but the entire Hartford area. Enclosure of the open channel sections 
will also eliminate a serious safety hazard which has accounted for seven 
drownings in the past. 

c. Engineering Considerations. From an engineering standpoint, 
I have selected the project that would provide the highest degree of flood 
protection feasible because of the highly urbanized nature of the project 
area. Although constraints exist on increasing the size of the twin -rec- 
tangular concrete conduit sections, flood control excess benefits have been 
maximized to determine the most economical and feasible size for the 
auxiliary conduit. I have selected the size of a 22 -foot diameter auxiliary 
conduit as having the least social, economical and environmental impact 
on the headpool areas as well as imposing the least detrimental effects 

on the activities in the Hartford area. The recommended project was found 
to be the most practical method of meeting the flood control needs in the 
Hartford area. Other considered project alternatives including non- 
structural measures did not meet the criteria and requirements for various 
economic, social and environmental reasons. 

d. Economic Considerations . From an economic standpoint, I 
have selected the economically optimum plan by providing a high degree 

56 



of flood protection and enhancement of social well-being and economic 
growth. The recommended project will have a net effect of increasing 
employment, tax revenues, and property values and will preserve and 
stimulate further growth in the protected area. 

e. Other Public Interest Considerations . I find that the desires 
of local interests as well as the repeated requests for extending the 
existing conduit Section 8 north of Farmington Avenue, are feasible and 
economically justified based on a combination of tangible and intangible 
benefits. This extension of the flood control improvement will enhance 
the social well-being and economic and environmental aspects in the 
Hartford area. 

I find that the proposed action, as developed in the Plan Formu- 
lation and Recommendations, is based on thorough analysis and evalua- 
tion of various practicable alternative courses of action for achieving 
the stated objectives; that wherever adverse effects are found to be in- 
volved they cannot be avoided by following reasonable alternative courses 
of action which would achieve the Congr essionally specified purposes; 
that where the proposed action has an adverse effect, this effect is either 
ameliorated or substantially outweighed by other considerations of na- 
tional policy; that the recommended action is consonant with national 
policy, statutes, and administrative directives; and that on balance the 
total public interest should best be served by the implementation of the 
recommendations. 

&>f)f\ku** — - 

J H. MASON" 
lonel, Corps of Engineers 
Division Engineer 







R. RECOMMENDATION 

57. TREATMENT RECOMMENDED. - It is recommended that the 
project plan, consisting of twin-rectangular conduit extension sections 
along the Park River, the North Branch and a short section on the 
South Branch; a junction structure; pumping stations; a headwall and 
dike on the North Branch; and the auxiliary conduit; submitted in this 
memorandum, be approved as the basis for preparation of the Phase II- 
General Design Memorandum for the Park River Local Protection Proj 
ect. It is further recommended that the departures from the project 
document of extending the conduit and headwall north of Farmington 
Avenue on the North Branch Park River and of completing the Armory- 
Pumping Station be approved. 



58 



i .'-J 




<§j 




[1 PA 55s% v Hr* ,m ™'mfi ^l^— ' 


V 


\sj^%^ "r 






LOCAL FLOOD PROTECTION 

BASIN MAP 

PARK RIVER BASIN CONNECTICUT 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WALTHAM, MASS. 

ARCH, 1973 



CORPS OF ENGINEERS 




PLATE 2-2 



CORPS OF ENGINEERS 




TWIN RECTANGULAR 34' x 26'- 6" CONDUIT 



G_ Foot BridgejJ 
(Removed) 



SECTION 3 



\/ s ? ; ? / ? s / / s / / / / r7-T7 



■f'^^ 



'■"/>"ryr>7y7-7-r > -r >,,,,,,, , ,,, , ,,,-rrr 



■ Inv; 14.70 1 S- 0.0005 -»- j 13 84^4 



G_ Flower St-z^) G_ Bioad St.lH 

X 



i > r / / > > > t j > > i > i 7 ~///. 



Approximate Ground Line 




7 "■(tv"™; 14 - 8 U-.oo 

p-lnv. 13.22 t S-0.0005-»- l|U> Inv. 12.63/ ^>-lnv 

/ / / / / / 1 ' SS////U S /////?//// 1/ /// z ± c rr7-^ 



25+0 20+0 

PARK RIVER 



iiiiiiiiillu : 



liny; -2 96-Q 



40 ■ 
30 ° 



SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 
DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT 



SECTION 6 (Completed) 



^STRUCTURE 
^ . 1 . /.L SECTI0N4 , , 



CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT 



KS_ Hdmillon St. 



Ele v. 4 6,0-(? 

Elev. 34.0 



Concrete Lining 

S -0.0005- 



\ , , , n I I , i i i i ii i i > i I I I 1 1 I I! I 11/ I Z ZZ 



TWIN 36'«?7'-6 - CONDUIT 



>-lnv.ir02 I s=q.oqo8^ 



_ fI lnv_;l5.37_ 
2~ S -077005 



SOUTH BRANCH 
(EXTENSION OF PARK RIVER STATIONING) 





































































■ 




— 










U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION. NEW ENGLAND 






UK 1 11 «l. 1 e>. >' 


WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECI 

PARK RIVER LOCAL PROTECTION 

PROFILES 

HARTFORO CONNECTICUT. 
1PHBM M* 














ortAwilio nUMulk 


2-3 












PLATE 





CORPS OF ENGINEERS 












r^ 






m 


ri£i£ 


t, 






'■"" l3 ._ . g 


o- ,r-o- 


,._ . 


o » 






— **- ^ 


1 — 4 


.W- 



SECTION 5 



COORDINATES- CURVE DATA" BASELINE STATIONS 
PARK RIVER CONDUIT EXTENSION 


Curve 


PI Cooroinotes 


S 


A 


T 


L 


PC. Sla . 


PT. Slo. 






A 


,50.666.738 


,65.5,2.923 


20000 


rato-oB 


,38 2 7 


2„,6 


9-68.04 


,,4,0.0, 


B 


,S,.0U.74, 


165,02177, 


200 00 


2236-14 


39 37 


7,7. 


,5.2,23 


,6-06.97 


c 


,51.187,99 


.6V67.O05 


200.00 


5*4*00 


64.25 


,2502 


22-.6..3B 


24,06.8 5 


D 


,,,.,,6.0,5 


,63,8,,., ,5 


200.00 


301.1-Jl 


5,89 


,07.,. 


27.8,7. 


28.88.92 


E 


,50,67,998 


I6B.S7I.9M 


200.00 


I2-59-I3 


22.1. 


44,7 


S2..S.20 


32.59.3 7 


F 


150,041656 


163,2,2. 946 


200 00 


'-»■« 


,166 


3125 


39.08.67 


39-39 92 


G 


,.9.7573,, 


I6VI6-5I0 


200 00 


*>*>. 


15.66 


3,25- 


42.04,6 


42.36.2, 


H 


,.9,0,6.,„ 


,63.138.940 


200 00- 


5^57.37' 


0,B2- 


,88.36' 


48.63,2 


50.2328 




I |,48.,oaooo| ,62.6e,.ooo | 20ooo|3*d-34J sistt] ,,5.6«j 2.50.05 | 3.65,6 



'"'HF^— N 



r 7 ■ M^ irt 



Seeded Topsoil, OS rtquir 



\ H Corps of Engine 

> " Modified Plan. 






Completed Work by Connecticut 
Highway Department and City 
of Hartford. 



Structure Eicavalio 



' \'.? 4 . — vx&zzf&iiM 



SECTION 4 



SECTION 7 
Length 1014' 



I SECTION 6 M 
I Length 1460' R*^ 

\y xx v xx vvxT T 



AUXILIARY CONDUIT 

(FOR DETAILS SEE PLATE 2-6) 



typical half sections 

note; 

For Typical Section for Sections 7 99 
See PLATE 1-5 



r ENGINEER D1VISI0N,NEVI ENGLAND 



WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 

PARK RIVER LOCAL PROTECTION 

DETAIL SHEET NO. I 

HARTFORD CPHNFETiCUT 



PLATE 2-4 



CORPS OF ENGINEERS 



MAT C H LINE A - A 






r^=¥ 





Stone 

SECTIONS 7 a 9 (TYPICAL) 

SCALE I" > 10' 



MATC H LINE A- A 



COORDINATES" CURVE DATA - BASE LINE STATIONS 
PARK RIVER CONDUIT EXTENSION 




P.I.Coordinoles 


R 


A 


T 


L 


P.C.Sta. 


p.T. sm. 




N 


E 


J 


1.5.057.000 


, SOS* 000 


200.00' 


9--501.7- 


,6.6,2 


ss .zo, 


6.27.550 


6.60.557 


K 




,62.066 000 


200.00' 


.5--28-50- 




5.0,9 


,0, ,5.5.6 


,0.67 566 


L 


149,671.000 


I6i.rei.000 


200.00' 


9^«I-,2- 


I7.HI 


3.279 


...95. .2. 


,5.27 703 


M 


,50,2.9.500 


,6,. .80.000 


200 00' 


li-Of-Zt 


26 550 


J27»o 


2, .36.095 


2, .66 693 


N 


,50.930.000 


,60.95.000 


20000 


i5"-ra'-37- 


61.90 


,22 855 


30.23.62 


3,..6..38 





















Q) 



Corp5 of Engine 



Completed Work by Connecticut 
Highwoy Department and City 
of Hartford 



WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 

PARK RIVER LOCAL PROTECTION 

DETAIL SHEET NO. 2 

HARTFORD CONNECTICUT 



PLATE 2-5 



CORPS OF ENGINEERS 




PLATE 2-6 



APPENDIX A 



LETTERS OF COMMENT AND CONCURRENCE 



APPENDIX A 



LETTERS OF COMMENT AND CONCURRENCE 
PARK RIVER LOCAL PROTECTION 
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 



CONTENTS 



LETTER DATED AGENCY EXHIBIl 

14 March 1973 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1 

16 Jan 1973 Conn. Department of Environmental 

Protection 2 

14 Nov 1972 City of Hartford 3 

2 June 197Z Greater Hartford Flood Commission 4 

Z4 Oct 197Z U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service 5 

3 July 197Z Conn. Department of Transportation 6 

30 June 1972 The Metropolitan District, Hartford 7 

30 June 197Z U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Soil Conservation Service 8 

Z9 June 1972 U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration 9 

I 5 Aug 1972 Conn. Department of Agriculture 10 

21 Aug 1972 U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service 1 1 

5 July 1972 U.S. Departnv Interior, 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 12 

II Sept 1972 Department of Housing and Urba 

Devel' 1 i 

3 July 1 972 ut PubH< 1 I 

L 5 April 1969 Greater Hax Commit! J 






UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION I 



£ JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING - ROOM 2303, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203 

March 14, 1973 



Mr, John W. Leslie, Chief 

Engineering Division 

Department of the Army 

New England Division, Corps of Engineers 

424 Trapelo Road 

Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 

Dear Mr. Leslie: 

We have reviewed the Design Memorandum No. 2, Phase I — Plan 
Formulation for the Park River Local Protection Project; Hartford, 
Connecticut. We found no changes in the plan that would alter our 
previous comments on this project concerning water quality. We do feel, 
however, that as a part of the plan formulation, the various impacts of the 
construction itself should be considered. Noise from construction equipment, 
increased siltation and dust resulting from earth-movinp, and traffic con- 
gestion are several of these potential problems. The noise, dust and 
traffic problems are critical due to the location of the work in a densely 
populated area. The severity of these problems might be minimized through 
regulating the timing of the work. We recommend that such initiative measures 
be considered to minimize adverse impact on the local environment. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this plan and would like to 
keep informed of its progress. 

Sincerely yours, 



l\)cidcit« i otV^tuc 



3 



Wallace E. Stickney, P.E. 

Chief 
Environmental Impact Branch 



EXHIBIT 1 




STATE OF CONNECTICUT 
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

State Office Building Hartford, Connecticut 06115 

January 16, 1973 



W 




Colonel John H. Mason 

Division Engineer 

New England Division 

Corps of Engineers 

424 Trapelo Road 

Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 



Re: Park River Local Protection Project 
Hartford, Connecticut 



Dear Colonel Mason: 



After a careful review of the above-referenced project, we are 
satisfied that the proposed project will have little or no adverse 
environmental effects upon the area scheduled for improvement. 



The need for completion of this vital flood control link in 
the protection of such a highly urbanized area is recognized by the 
Department of Environmental Protection. 



I am sure that you can expect the state's cooperation in a 
formal approval of the project when the project agreement is submitted 
by the Greater Hartford Flood Commission. 



At your service, 



\Ji 



i^u_ bUsJhs^-^ 



Dan W. Lufkin 
Commissioner 



EXHIBIT 2 




COUNCCLMEN 

AX m BENNETT 

;mOL»S B. CARBON* 
iUJAM A. DIBELLA 
Uf M HE3LIN 
Loot B. LADO 
l:OHO«LEVINE 

XTN A. MABTIN 
CM ABO BUISMAN 

maA»rr v. tioohi 



CITY OF HARTFORD 

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL 
SJO MAIN STREET 

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 

(203) 566-6710 



CLfKR 
BOBCBT J. BALUVi 



November 14, 1972 



This is to certify that at a meeting of the Court of Common 
Council, November 13, 1972, the following RESOLUTION was 
passed. 

: .. !IEREAS, The City of Hartford in 1959 approved a flood 
control system along the Park River, such system only partially 
completed because of lack of funds; and 

WHEREAS, In 1968 although Congress authorized completion 
of this project the necessary appropriations to carry it 
out were not made; and 

WHEREAS, Renewed interest in the completion of this project 
may succeed in obtaining required federal funds; and 

WHEREAS, Affirmative interest on the part of Council is 
necessary before The Army Corps of Engincere can submit a 
favorable report to Congress and thus be allowed to continue 

ith its design phase such a design phase at no cost to the 
City; now, therefore, be it 

RESOLVED, That the Court of Common Council repeat its 
expression of interest in seeing the Flood Control Project 
completed in order to protect the lives and investments of the 
citizens of Hartford. 



Attest 



Robert J Veal 1 1 van , 



city Clerk 



Copies to: "City Manager, Deputy Mayor Heal in, GrCAttI iurt: 
Flood Commission and The Army Corpa of Eng ineern. 



EXHIBIT 3 



> 



uionert 

,OLD F. KEITH 
iRGE B. KINSELLA 
«AVJ4W»AV- 
S C. PARSONS 
*ARD PINNEY 
MB, H.PUTNAM 
XIAM J. REYNOLDS 



GREATER HARTFORD FLOOD COMMISSION 

550 MAIN STREET 
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061O3 

TELEPHONE 3CC08US 



June 2, 1972 



HAROLD F, Ktllll 

. -. ttvu n 

CEORCE B. KIN SELLA 
Virr Chairman 

H. WABDNNNE1 

GBOBCE E . 
Din 



Colonel John H. Mason 

Deputy Division Engineer 

Department of the Army 

New England Division, Corps of Engineers 

424 Trapelo Road 

Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 

Dear Colonel Mason: 

Thank you for your letter of 18 May 1972 advising us that the Park 
River Local Protection Project, authorized by the Flood Control Act oi 
Public Law 483, 90th Congress, is presently under design. This is good n 
for the Greater Hartford Flood Commission and the City of Hartford. 

It is my understanding that because of the lapse of time since th>- 
original Park River Report was made, it will be necessary to first rev 
and restudy the entire project before design can be completed. 

In the original study, the Corps of Engineers found it unfeasible to 
extend the North Branch Conduit across Farmington Avenue. It was pre ; 
to end the North Branch Conduit about seventy-five feet south of Farmington 
Avenue and construct a headwall extending partly along the south Street 
line of Farmington Avenue. 

The City of Hartford and the Greater Hartford Flood Commission fee] 
that there are advantages to extending the Conduit to at Least the n Cth 
side of Farmington Avenue. One big advantage would be that Farming ton 
Avenue would be protected from flooding under design c<>: Farmingt 

Avenue is one of the City's main east-west trail L< ai t tent 

design conditions estimate ponding beyond the end oJ the Conduit to eJ 
52 m.s.l. Since the existing roadway on the Farming 1 >n Avenue ; 
at about elevation 50 m.s.l., under th<- standard pr< Loodj thi ■• sti»-.-t. 

one of the City's busiest major arterie Id be '■■ 

two feet, if this were to happen, it could be very difficult (plain 

the public why F"armington Avenue was not p d. 

Th<- present Farmington Avenue Bridge ha thei Limit 
opening. During the flood oi August L955, the bridge as a 

dam during the high flows. Under present tions, Ld 

probably go over Farmington Avenw 

which might Lowex the theoretics] pondin Less 

than elevation 52 m.s.l. 

EXHIBIT 4 



PAGE l OF 2 



TO: Colonel John H. Mason June 2, 1972 

Corps of Engineers 



The present Farmington Avenue Bridge is built on piles. It carries 
two major water mains besides other utilities. The construction of Conduit 
to within about seventy-five feet of the south street line has lowered the 
water level along the south edge of the bridge, so that the piles are now 
probably deteriorating due to wetting and drying. It is only a matter of 
time before this bridge will have to be replaced, in any event. By extend- 
ing the Conduit across Farmington Avenue and constructing the proposed 
headwall north of Farmington Avenue, this important arterial street can be 
protected from possible interruption. 

On behalf of the Greater Hartford Flood Commission and the City of 
Hartford, I urge your agency to reconsider the location of the proposed 
headwall on the North Branch Park River Conduit. 

In my letter of April 18, 1966 to Colonel Remi 0. Renier , Acting 
Division Engineer, I assured the Corps of Engineers that the required 
local co-operation, as outlined in his letter of March 24, 1966, would be 
forthcoming. I know the City of Hartford still needs and wants the flood 
protection which will be provided by this project, and that there will be 
no problem in securing whatever local co-operation will be required to 
bring this project to a successful conclusion. 

I wish to assure you that the Greater Hartford Flood Commission and 
the City of Hartford appreciate the continued interest you and the Corps 
of Engineers have shown in Hartford's flood problem. I trust that the 
Congress of The United States will see fit to appropriate funds so that 
this project may be brought to an early and successful completion. 

Very truly yours, / 

f/ \frrf/ /'<&u 

Harold F. Keith 
L L Chairman 

HFK:mm 

cc : Honorable George A. Athanson , Mayor 



EXHIBIT 4 
PAGE 2 OF 2 



! 




UNITED STATES 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE 

U. S. POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE 

BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02 ! 09 



OCT 2 4 1972 



Division Engineer 

New England Division 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 

424 Trapelo Road 

Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 

Dear Sir: 

This is in reply to your letter of June 19, 1972, requesting our comments 
on the proposed Park River Local Protection Project in Hartford, Connecti- 
cut. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1968, Public 
Law 483, 90th Congress. This report was prepared under authority of the 
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 
661-666 inc.). It has been reviewed by and has the concurrence of the 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and the National Marine Fisheries Service. 
It has also been coordinated with the Connecticut Department of Environ- 
mental Protection. 

We understand the proposed work consists of constructing 3,716 feet of 
conduit, a junction structure, a headwall, an auxiliary conduit, and 
a pumping station. 

We have determined that there would be no enhancement opportunities or 
adverse fish and wildlife effects associated with this work. Therefore, 
we do not object to the construction of the project as described. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your plans. 

Sincerely yours, 



AOING Region, tor V U W 



EXHIBIT 5 




S1^V£ OF CONNECTICUT 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
24 Wolcott Hill Road PO Drawer A Wethersfield Connecticut 06109 



C 



net Of THE 
! MAtlSS'ONf* 



July 3, 1972 



r. John W. Leslie 

hief, Engineering Division 

epartment of the Army 

ew England Division, Corps of Engineers 

24 Trapelo Road 

altham, Massachusetts 02154 

tear Mr. Leslie: 



Re: Park River Local Protection 

Project - Hartford, Connecticut 



his will acknowledge your letters of June 19, 1972, to Commissioner Wood and to 
:he Bureau of Highways inviting comments concerning the proposed Park River Local 
'rotection Project at Hartford. 

iS you noted in your letters sections 1, 3, 6 and 8 were built across and along 
jarts of the Park River in conjunction with Interstate 84. The other sections, 
junction structure, headwall, auxiliary conduit and pumping station are proposed 
:o supplement and extend the existing protective structures. The general plan 
submitted with your letters outlines the proposed work. 

It is considered that the proposed conduit sections 2, 4, 5 and 7, the junction 
structure and the pumping station can all be constructed without interference 
</ith Interstate 84, other State highways or with the New Haven to Hartford section 
of the Penn Central Railroad. 

Preliminary engineering for Interstate 484, known as the Bushnell Connector, 
between Interstate 84 near the State Armory and Interstate 91 near the existing 
Park River conduit outfall is underway and will, in many places, be Located over 
the top of the conduit. Mr. S. T. Bothwell, Sr. of our Department has been in 
contact with Mr. Frank Fogarty of your office concerning Interstate 484. Any 
necessary strengthening or bridging of the conduit will, of course, be coordinated 
between our designers and the Army Engineers. 

The proposed auxiliary conduit crosses Interstate 91 and trackl of the Valley 
Division of the Penn Central Railroad in tl Lnlty of the COTtH 

Oak and Van Dyke Avenues. The design for these crossings will require coordination 
with our Bureau of Highways and Bureau of Rail and HotOl Lei Services. 

The proposed headwall at the north end of the Park River condulf I on 
(section 8) is located just south of Fa 1 tatc property vtll 

itaey be required for construction of a conn- < > or t 1 oni larmi p to 

Interstate 84 to relieve Local traffic congestion. OU1 plan, 

jposed headwall would Interfere with our construe! ;. 

r plan also shows dotted Lines indicating that 

c date north of Parmlngton Av icl oi 



EXHIBIT 6 
PAGE 1 OF 2 



Mr. John W. Leslie - 2 - July 3, 1972 

the Park River. There are no plans for the foreseeable future to construct such 
an expressway to the north of Farmington Avenue and it is recommended that your 
general plan be revised to remove the possibility that some who view the plan 
might so interpret our future intentions. When traffic studies are completed 
we will advise you of our highway needs so that the proposed headwall may be 
designed without interference with roadways, which may be required for a future 
Farmington Avenue connector. 

In order to assist us in the further study of your proposed project it is 

requested that you provide us with two copies of the report referred to in 

paragraph one of your letters „ Thank you for the opportunity of commenting 
on your proposed plans. 

Very truly yours, 



JfaiydfL 




George S . Koch 

Deputy Transportation Commissioner 

Bureau of Highways 



EXHIBIT 6 
PAGE 2 OF 2 



TER SUPPLY 
EWERAGE 

gGUG/rel 



THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 

HARTFORD PLAZA-P O BOX 800 
HARTFORD. CONN. 06101 



TELEf 
278 ~ 



June 30, 1972 



Attention of NEDED-R 



Mr. John Wm. Lesl i e 

Chief, Engineering Division 

New England Division, Corps of Engineers 

k2k Trapelo Road 

Waltham, Massachusetts 021 5*+ 



Dear Mr. Lesl i e: 

We are indeed glad to learn from your letter of June 19, 1972, that 
you are currently under design on the remaining sections of the Park River 
Local Protection Project and the 22-foot diameter auxiliary conduit. 

Rather than put various comments, recommendations, etc., on matters 
which will affect both our Bureau of Public Works and Water Bureau in a 
letter, v/e suggest that an early across-the-tabl e conference be arranged, 
preferable at our Headquarters here in Hartford, to discuss these matters 
i n some detai 1 . 

In my own personal view, much more can be accomplished at the stent 
of design of a project by an across-the-tabl e discussion, rather than by 
1 etter . 

Arrangements for such a session can be made by phone by calling ci- 
ther the undersigned, Mr. Arthur Sweeton or Mr. H. A. Phillips. 



S i nccrcl y yours, 



Nv^^VV^St^ 



Gi lbcrt U. Gustaf son 
Di strict Manager 



cc: 



AWS 
ERH 
HAP 
RGR 
GUG 



EXHIBIT 7 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 

Mansfield Professional Park, Storrs, CT 06268 

June 30, 1972 



Mr. John Wm. Leslie, Chief 

Engineering Division 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 

424 Trapelo Road 

Waltham, MA 02154 



Dear Mr. Leslie: 

Your letter of June 19, 1972 and the accompanying map regarding the prelimi- 
ary plans for the proposed local protection project on the North and South 
Branches - Park River has been received. 

The Soil Conservation Service and the local sponsor have completed channel 
works of improvement on the South Branch-Park River from Hamilton Street 
to Newfield Avenue in accordance with the Work Plan approved in March 1961. 

Under construction at the present time and due for completion during this 
construction season is the section of Trout Brook from the Penn Central 
Railroad Bridge upstream to the vicinity of South Quaker Lane in West 
Hartford. A contract has been awarded to construct the intervening section 
of the channel from Newfield Avenue to the Penn Central Railroad Bridge on 
Trout Brook. The Newfield Avenue Bridge is to be rebuilt by the City of 
Hartford in the future, but no construction is planned at present. 

A portion of Piper Brook, immediately tributary to the South Branch-Park 
River, will be constructed to Soil Conservation Service design requirements 
by the town of West Hartford Redevelopment Agency south to the Newington 
town line. A portion of this proposed work in the vicinity of New Britain 
Avenue, is to be constructed in conjunction with the Soil Conservation 
Service contract mentioned above. 

On Rockledge Brook, a tributary of Trout Brook, a short section of a 
closed conduit has been constructed. 

Four floodwater retention structures and a natural retention basin, 
Deadwood Swamp, have been completed and are under operations and maintenance 
control by the Sponsor. 

The remaining channel improvements to be installed in accordance with tin- 
Work Plan are located in the upper reaches of Piper Brook and Mill Brook in 
Newington, and another section of Trout Brook in West Hartford. Current 
Soil Conservation Service policy is to re-examine those proposed works of 
improvement to determine whether or not Changei Li md 



EXHIBIT 8 
PAGE1 OF 2 



A 




John Win. Leslie, 6/30/72 



environmental considerations affect the feasibility and economic justifica- 
tion of the planned protection works. This review will be accomplished 
during fiscal year 1973. 

This summarizes the activity of the Soil Conservation Service in the Park 
River Watershed. We have no specific comments on the proposed Park River 
Local Protection Project referred to in your letter. 

We shall be pleased to continue our cooperation with your department 
and other federal, state and local agencies involved. If we can be 
of further assistance, please let us know. 

Sincerely, 



Robert L. Hilliard 
State Conservationist 



( 



EXHIBIT 8 
PAGE 2 OF 2 




U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 
REGION ONE 

990 iethersfield Avenue 
Hartford, Connecticut 06llU 

June 29, 1972 
• department of the Army IN REPLY REFER TO 

New England Division 01-06.2 

Corps of Engineers 
U2U Trapelo rtoad 
",~altham, Massachusetts 021 $k 

Dear Kr. Leslie : 

Our primary concern would be the portion of the conduit parsing un- 
der Interstate liotfte 91 between the steel pile bents. A set of semi- 
final plans for this particular area would be appreciated when design 
has progressed to this stage. 

It is our understanding that Mr. Botlr-.xll of the Etate Department of 
Transportation has been in contact with Mr. F. ... Fogsrty, Chief, Op- 
erations Division on review of preliminary drawings for Project 63- 
135 , Interstate itoute 1|8U. 

oincerely yours, 

A. J. Siccardi 
Division Engineer 



EXHIBIT 9 




STATE OF CONNECTICui 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



State Office Blildinc 



Hartford, Connecticut 06115 



THOMAS J. MESKILL 

COVMKOK 

JOHN T. MACDONALD 
COMMISSIONER 

F P. FUTTNER 

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 



August 15, 1972 
NEDED-R 



Mr. John V/m. Leslie, Chief 

Engineering Division 

Department of the Army 

New England Division, Corps of Engineers 

424 Trapelo Road 

Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 

Dear Mr. Leslie: 

Thank you for your letter of June 19, 1972 regarding the 
proposed local protection project involving the Park 
River in Hartford. 

Inasmuch as this project is mainly within the city, I cannot 
foresee any agricultural problems. 




Sj-fheerely yours 






John T. MacdonaLd 
Commiss ioner 



x4/ 



JTM/ebp 



EXHIBIT 10 




United States Department of the Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 



l REPLY REFER TO: 



NORTHEAST REGION 

143 SOUTH THIRD STREET 

PHILADELPHIA. PA. 191Q6 



525L AUG .^11972 



i T ER(CF) 



Mr* John Win. Leslie 

Chief, Engineering Division 

Department of the Army 

Kew England Division, Corps of Engineers 

k2k Trapelo Road 

Waltham, Massachusetts 02151; 

Dear Mr. Leslie: 

T ,-,'e regret the delay in responding to your letter requesting our 

comments on the proposed park River Local protection project. 

As far as we can determine, no historical sites of Federal, State 

or local concern are affected by this project. We would, however, 

suggest you contact the Hon. John F. &• Davoren the State Liaison 

Officer for Historic Preservation to confirm our determination. 

Sincerely yours, 



David A. Kimball 

Chief, Federal, Stat/. i vote 

Agency &88J B tai ice 



EXHIBIT 11 




IN REPLY REFER TO: 



UNITED STATES 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION 

FEDERAL BUILDING 

1421 CHERRY STREET 

PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19102 



JUL 5 1972 



Mr. John Wm. Leslie 

Chief, Engineering Division 

New England Division, Corps of Engineers 

1+2U Trapelo Road 

Wlatham, MA 0215 1 * 

Dear Mr. Leslie : 

This is in response to your letter of June 19, 1972 
regarding the proposed Park River Local Protection Project 
in Hartford, Connecticut. We are presently unable to 
conduct a detailed study of this project and we have 
no comment at this time. 

The opportunity to review and comment on your proposal 
is appreciated. 

Sincerely yours , 



(oJLO Y\.^L 



Earl C. NichdlJ 
Assistant Regional Director, Planning 
and Land and Water Resource Studies 



EXHIBIT 12 




DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT area offices 

Boston, Uatsachusrl's 

AREA OFFICE Haitfopd. Connect u-ut 

999 ASYLUM AVENUE, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06105 *■■**•«•*. Hew Hmapahb 

REGION I 

regional office September 11, 1972 

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

IN REPLY REFER TO 

Mr. John William Leslie, Chief 1.2PMR-2 

Engineering Division 
Department of the Army- 
New England Division 
Corps of Engineers 

»U2k Trapelo Road 
Waltham, Massachusetts 021 Sk 

Dear Mr. Leslie: 

Subject: Proposed Park River Local Protection Project (NKDED-R) 
Hartford, Connecticut 

This office has reviewed the proposed Park River Local Protection 
Project submitted June 19 » 1972. We have no comments concerning 
the proposed project. 




Daniel P. Kolesar 
Director 
Operations Division 



EXHIBIT 13 




STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 

State Office Buildino Haatford. Connecticut 06115 

July 3 , 1972 



IN HIPLY MFC* TO 

NEDED-R 



Department of the Army- 
New England Division, Corps of Engineers 
424 Trapelo Road 
Waltham, Mass. 02154 

Attn: Mr. John Wm. Leslie 

Chief, Engineering Division 

Dear Mr. Leslie: 

Thank you for your letter of June 19, 1972, requesting 
our comments regarding the Park River Local Protection 
Project in Hartford, Conn. 

This department has no comments in reference to the 
proposed project. We are therefore forwarding a copy of 
your letter to the Department of Environmental Protection 
for their information and possible comments. 



Very truly yours, 




Edward J. Kozlowski 
Public Works Commissioner 



EXHIBIT 14 



Committioners 

HAROLD F. KEITH 
GEORGE B. KINSELLA 
JAMES V. MURRAY 
JOHN C. PARSONS 
H. WARD PINNEY 
LYONEL H. PUTNAM 



GREATER HARTFORD FLOOD COMMISSION 

11 ASYLUM STREET 
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103 

Tklmpuosh sa«-9toa 

April 15, 1969 



HAROLD F. IE1TH 
Chairman 

CEORCEB. KINbEI.LA 
Vice Chairman 

H. WARD PIN Nt. Y 
Secretary 

PHILIP C. SMITH 
Director 

ALEXANDER A. GOLDFARB 
Couneei 



Colonel Frank P. Bane 

Division Engineer 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 

New England Division 

ii2ii Trapelo Road 

Waltham, Massachusetts 0215^1 

Dear Colonel Bane: 

Your request of 2li February 1969 that the Greater Hartford 
Flood Commission, acting for the City of Hartford, reaffirm its 
assurance of local cooperation in "the project for flood pro- 
tection on Park River, Connecticut" as authorized under Section 
203 of Public Law !i83> 90th Congress, has been reviewed by this 
Commiss ion. 

The Commission has directed that 1 provide you v/ith such 
assurance in the manner prescribed as follows: 

"This will certify assurance of capability and willingness 
of the Greater Hartford Flood Commission to provide the re- 
quirements of local cooperation or reimbursement outlined in 
your letter of inquiry regardino the Park River project. These 
requirements will be provided at the time re d by the 
Division Engineer, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, In accordance 
v/ith applicable legislative authority oovernlnq the project. " 



M 

v/ith original 




EXHIBIT 15 



APPENDIX B 



PROJECT COST AND ESTIMATES 



I 



APPENDIX B 



PROJECT COST AND ESTIMATES 



PARK RIVER LOCAL PROTECTION 



CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN 



HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 



CONTENTS 



Paragraph 



Subject 



Page No 



CONSTRUCTION COSTS B-l 

UNIT PRICES B-l 
CONTINGENCIES, ENGINEERING AND 

OVERHEAD B-l 

INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION B-l 

ANNUAL CHARGES B-l 

a) Interest and Amortization B-l 

b) Maintenance and Operation B-2 

c) Major Replacement B-2 
LANDS AND DAMAGES B-2 
RELOCATIONS B-2 



LIST OF TABLES 



Table 



Subject 



Page No 



B-l 
B-2 

B-3 
B-4 



ESTIMATED FIRST COST - SUMMARY B-4 

ESTIMATED TOTAL INVESTMENT B-4 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS B-5 

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE B-6 



APPENDIX B 

PROJECT COST AND ESTIMATES 

PARK RIVER LOCAL PROTECTION 

CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN 

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 

1. CONSTRUCTION COSTS - Principal construction items were esti- 
mated on the basis of a preliminary design, the plans, sections and 
details of which are shown on plates following the text of the report. 

A summary of the total cost of the project including Federal and non- 
Federal costs, estimated at $53,000,000, is shown in Table B-l. A 
detailed breakdown is shown in Table B-4. The feature of lands and 
damages includes the additional costs for resettlement and acquisition 
as required under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Proper- 
ty Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, P. L. 91-646. The cost estimate 
also reflects a small increase over the last reported estimate in the 
PB-3 of 1 July 1972, in which the project first cost was $51,800,000. 

2. UNIT PRICES - Unit prices at the 1973 price level are based on 
average cost for construction of comparable conduit projects in 'he 
Greater Hartford area. 

3. CONTINGENCIES, ENGINEERING AND OVERHEAD - The con- 
struction and relocation cost estimates have been increased 20 percent 
to cover contingencies. Costs of engineering and design, and super- 
vision and administration, are estimated lump sums, based on exper- 
ience, evaluation of the site and project, and comparison with simi- 
lar projects in the area. 

4. INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION - Accrued interest during con- 
struction is computed on the basis of a three-year construction period. 
This was derived by multiplying the total construction expenditures by 
the 3.25 percent interest rate and by one-half of the construction 
period in years. The Federal and non-Federal investment costs in- 
cluding accrued interest during construction are shown in Table B-2. 

5. ANNUAL CHARGES - A breakdown of annual charges is shown in 
Table B-3. 

a) Interest and Amortization - The project is considered to ha • 
an economic life of 100 years, [nteresl is computed at ^ . 2 S percent 






amortized over a 100-year period. The Greater Hartford Flood Com- 
mission furnished satisfactory assurances by letter dated 15 April 1969 
in conjunction with the Water Resources Council's policy on revised 
interest rate for water resources projects. This letter is included as 
Exhibit 15 in Appendix A. More recent concurrence and willingness 
to participate in the construction of the project is expressed by the 
Greater Hartford Flood Commission in their letter of 2 June 1972, in- 
cluded as Exhibit 4 in Appendix A. 

b) Maintenance and Operation - This item is estimated on the 
basis of experience with other similar projects in the area. Included 
are costs for maintenance of the project structures and for operation of 
the project during periods of flood conditions. Also included are opera- 
tional procedures of the sluice gates and pumps and other permanent 
operating equipment and gages . In determining the operation and main- 
tenance annual charges, estimated at $50,000, a 100-year economic 
life was used for the project. 

c) Major Replacements - An allowance of $40, 000 as shown in 
Table B-3, is made for the replacement of items deemed to have a usable 
life of less than the 100-year life of the over-all project. 

6. LANDS AND DAMAGES - This item reflects the cost to local inter- 
ests for lands required for the conduits, temporary construction ease- 
ments, relocation assistance to occupants, and severance damages. A 
detailed breakdown of lands and damages is given in Table B-4. The 
conduit extensions will be constructed within the banks of the streams. 
The auxiliary conduit will be constructed principally within street 
rights-of-way. Where the conduit passes under private property, per- 
manent easements will be secured. Local interests will be required to 
provide spoil areas; however, it is anticipated that, at the time of con- 
struction, fill will be in demand and surplus material from the project 
construction may be sold. 

The entire project will require that about 12 acres be taken in per- 
manent easement, of which about 9.5 acres are required for the auxili- 
ary conduit subsurface easement. An additional area of about 9.5 acres 
has been acquired in fee by the Greater Hartford Flood Commission. 
Approximately 24 acres will be required for temporary construction 
easements of which about 9 acres are of public ownership and 15 acres 
of private ownership. A two-story brick garage will be acquired, and 
5 paved parking areas will be affected during construction. 

7. RELOCATIONS - Costs shown in Table B-4 include replacement by 
local interests of paving, sidewalks and other appurtenances at the four 



B-2 



locations where existing bridges will be replaced by the conduit exten- 
sion. Also included is the relocation of the existing 54-inch sanitary- 
sewer line which is adjacent to the location of the proposed extension, 
section 9, above Farmington Avenue . At a number of locations, f he 
drains, sewers, and utilities will require relocation outside the area 
required for construction of the conduits . 



I'.- I 



TABLE B-l 

ESTIMATED FIRST COST 

SUMMARY 

Non-Federal 

Lands and Damages $ 1,100,000 

Relocations 500,000 



Total non-Federal First Cost $ 1,600,000 

Federal 

Pumping Stations $ 1,400,000 

Conduit Extension 17, 500, 000 

Auxiliary Conduit 25, 300, 000 

Engineering & Design 3,900,000 

Supervision & Administration 3 , 300 , 000 

Total Federal First Costs $ 51,400,000 

TOTAL FIRST COST $ 53,000,000 

TABLE B-2 



ESTIMATED TOTAL INVESTMENT 

Federal 

First Cost $ 51,400,000 

Interest During Construction 2,500,000 

Total Federal Investment $ 53,900,000 

Non-Federal 

First Cost $ 1, 600, 000 

Interest During Construction 78, 000 



Total Non-Federal Investment $ 1,678,000 

TOTAL INVESTMENT $ 55,578,000 



B-4 



TABLE B-3 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS 
(100-YEAR LIFE) 



Federal 

Interest & Amortization on Investment $ 1.826.000 

(.03388 x $53,900,000) 

Non-Federal 



Interest &i Amortization on 
Investment (.03388x $1,678,000) $ 57,000 

Major Replacements 40,000 

Maintenance & Operation 50, 000 

Total Non-Federal $ 147,000 



TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $ 1,973,000 

TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFITS $ 2,948,000 

BENEFIT -COST RATIO L.5tol.O 






TABLE B-4 

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE 
(1973 Price Level) 

01. Lands and Damages 

Conduit Section 9, Fee 
and /or Permanent Easement: 

Private Lands $ 207, 000 

Improvements 20, 000 

Severance Damages 50, 000 

Temporary Construction Easements 

Public and Private Lands 315,000 

Auxiliary Conduit 
Permanent Easements on 
Private Properties 50, 000 

Administrative Costs 15,000 

657,000 
Contingencies, 15% 100,000 

Relocation Assistance 43, 000 

Lands previously acquired by Local Interests 300, 000 

Total - Lands and Damages $ 1,100,000 

02. Relocations 

Replacement of: 

Broad Street $ 40, 000 

Flower Street 40, 000 

Laurel Street 40, 000 

Farmington Avenue 40, 000 

Relocation of Existing Utilities 80, 000 

Relocation of 54" Sanitary Sewer 180,000 

Contingencies 80, 000 

Total - Relocations $ 500, 000 



B-6 



Description 



Estimated 
Quantity 



Unit 



Unit 
Price 



Estimated 
Amount 



1 3. Pumping Stations 
Riverside Station: 
Structure 1 

Mechanical and Electrical Equip 1 

Armory Station 1 

Contingencies 

30. Engineering Ik Design 

31. Supervision & Administration 

Total - Pumping Stations 

1 5. 1 Conduit Extension 

Preparation of site 
Clearing and Grubbing 
Control of River 
Underpinning & protection of 

existing structures 
Maintenance & control of 

traffic 
Removal of buildings 
Removal of bridges 



Excavation 
Earth, general 
Rock, structure 
Rock, trench 

Borrow & Place 
Random Fill 
Pervious Fill 
Gravel Fill 
Broken Stone 



Conduit 
Reinforced concrete 
Access manholes 

Furnishing & driving piles 100,000 
Side drains 
Drain chambers 



Job 


L. S. 


$ 400, 000 


Job 


L.S. 


270,000 


Job 


L.S. 


500,000 

1 , 170,000 

230,000 






1 ,400,000 
100,000 
100,000 



$ 1,600,000 



1 


Job 


L. S. 


25, 000 


1 


Job 


L. S. 


10, 000 


1 


Job 


L. S. 


500, 000 



Job 



L. S. 



125, 000 



1 


Job 


L. S. 


60, 000 


1 


Job 


L. S. 


35, 000 


1 


Job 


L. S. 


30, 000 


190, 000 


c. y. 


$2. 00 


380, 000 


43, 000 


c. y. 


8. 00 


344, 000 


1,800 


c. y. 


15. 00 


27, 000 


160, 000 


c. y. 


2. 00 


320, 000 


140,000 


c. y. 


3. 00 


120,000 


14, 000 


c. y. 


5. 00 


70, 000 


9, 000 


c . y. 


10. 00 


90, 000 


78, 000 


c. y. 


120. 00 


9, 360,000 


10 


ea. 1700. 00 


17, 000 


100, 000 


1. f. 


17. 00 


1, 700, 000 


1 o, 000 


1. f. 


. 


, 000 


1 


J<;b 


I,, s. 


100, 000 



B-7 



Description 

Drainage Facilities 
R. C. Pipe 
Manholes 
Catch Basins 
Storm Siphons 
Sanitary Siphons 

Seeded Topsoil 

Rem. & Replace Utilities 



Contingencies 

30. Engineering & Design 

31. Supervision h Administration 

Total - Conduit Extensions 



Estimated 




Unit 


Estimated 


Quantity 


Unit 


Price 


Amount 




Job 


L. S. 


370, 000 




Job 


L. S. 


75, 000 




Job 


L. S. 


15,000 




Job 


L. S. 


185,000 




Job 


L. S. 


65,000 


12, 000 


c. y. 


7. 00 


84,000 


1 


Job 


L. S. 


60, 000 

14, 552,000 
2, 948,000 

17, 500, 000 
1,600, 000 
1,300, 000 



$ 20,400,000 



1 5. 2 Auxiliary Conduit 



Preparation of site 
Maint. &: control of traffic 
Control of water 
Underpinning &: prot, of bldgs. 



Excavation 
Earth, general 
Earth, tunnel 
Rock, structure 
Rock, tunnel 

Borrow & Place 
Pervious Fill 
Gravel Fill 
Random Fill 

Furnishing and drivinj 
steel sheet piling 

Tunnel support steel 





1 




1 




1 


dgs. 


1 


68, 


000 


28, 


000 


26, 


000 


145, 


000 


28, 


000 


2, 


000 


24, 


000 


100, 


000 


6,000, 


000 



Job 


L. S. 


15,000 


Job 


L. S. 


75,000 


Job 


L. S. 


150,000 


Job 


L. S. 


75,000 


c. y. 


2. 00 


136, 000 


c. y. 


34. 00 


952,000 


c. y. 


8. 00 


208, 000 


c. y. 


34. 00 


4, 930, 000 


C y. 


3. 00 


84, 000 


C y. 


5. 00 


10, 000 


c. y. 


2. 00 


48, 000 


s. f. 


6. 00 


600, 000 


lbs. 


.50 


3,000,000 



B-8- 



Description 

Rock bolts 
Steel lagging 
Liner plate -tunnel in 
earth 

Concrete, mass 
Concrete, reinforced 
Concrete, tunnel lining 
Grout, tunnel in rock 

Removal and replacement 
Water lines, Sewer lines, 
Drainage facilities & 
Utilities 

Access manhole 

Replacement of highway 
Pavement and sidewalks 



Estimated 




Unit 


Estimated 


Quantity 


Unit 
1. f. 


Price 
8. 00 


Amount 


25, 000 


200, 000 


40, 000 


1. f. 


4. 00 


160, 000 


1, 100, 000 


lbs. 


. 50 


550, 000 


3, 000 


c. y. 


80. 00 


240, 000 


30, 000 


c. y. 


120. 00 


3, 600, 000 


60, 000 


c. y. 


80. 00 


4,800, 000 


1 


Job 


L. S. 


200, 000 



Job L. S. 

ea.2, 500. 00 



Job 



L. S. 



900, 000 
5, 000 

60, 000 



Seeded topsoil 1 

Cofferdam 1 

Con tingencies 

30. Engineering &c Design 

31. Supervision & Administration 

Total - Auxiliary Conduit 
TOTAL PROJECT FIRST COST 



Job 


L. S. 


6, 000 


Job 


L. S. 


75, 000 

21, 079, 000 

4, 221, 000 




25, 300, 000 






2 ,200,000 






1, 900, 000 




$ 


29.400,000 




$ 


53,000,000 



I',- I 



ATTACHMENT 



ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 



PREFACE 



The attached Final Environmental Statement dated 1 6 July 
1971 filed with the President's Council on Environmental 
Quality on 1 September 1971 accompanies this Phase I submis- 
sion of the General Design Memorandum as required by ER 1110- 
2-1150, Appendix A, paragraph 2i. Data included in theFinal 
Environmental Statement reflects information available as of 
16 July 1971. 

Since the Final EIS was completed, effort prior to and 
during Phase I Plan Formulation has produced new data and 
changes not reflected in the Final EIS, such as the extension of 
the conduit north of Farmington Avenue. Those data and changes 
will be reflected in the updated Final Environmental Statement 
as indicated in ER 1110-2-1150, Appendix A, paragraph 3i. 

Section K of this Design Memorandum presents environ- 
mental data available at the time of preparation of the memorandum. 



16 July 1971 



Environmental Statement 



Park River Conduit 
Hartford, Connecticut 



Prepared by 

Department of the Army 

New F.ngland Division, Corps of Engineers 

Waltham , Massachusetts 



Park River Conduit, Hartford, Connecticut 

( ) Dr. i ll (X) Final Environmental Statement 

R esponsible Offic e: U.S. Army Engineer Division New England, Waltham, 

Mass. 

1. Name of A ction: Park River Conduit 
(X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 

2. Description of Action: The proposal calls for expansion of the 
present conduit system of the city of Hartford, Hartford County, Con- 
necticut. This includes additional conduit construction, the addition 
of a junction structure and a headwall on the North Branch, and 
auxiliary conduit from the junction structure to the Connecticut River 
and another pumping station. 

3. a. Environmental Impa cts: The project will have beneficial effects 
on flood control, water quality, pollution, sewage disposal, aesthetics, 
land and water traffic, recreation and urban development. 

b. Adverse Environmental Effects: No adverse environmental 
effects are identifiable. 

4. Alternatives : Additional reservoirs, modification of existing reser- 
voirs, diversion of portion of South Branch of the Park River, channel 
encroachment lines, protection plans and "no development. " 

5. Comments Received: 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries & State of Conn. Water Resources 

Wildlife Comm. 

Federal Water Quality Adm. State of Conn. Dept. of Agriculture 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources 

Greater Hartford Flood Commission 

6. Draft statement sent to CEQ 7 April 7 1 
Final statement sent to CEQ 



1. Project Description . The Park River watershed drams 78. 7 square 
miles from the mouth of the river at Hartford, west to its headwaters. 
The Park River is formed by the confluence of the North Branch and the 
South Branch of the Park River in the west central portion of the city of 
Hartford, Connecticut. The river flows easterlv 2.2 miles through the 
center of the city of Hartford and discharges into the Connecticut River 
about a half mile north of the Charter Oak Bridge. Tie lower 5, 600 
feet of the Park River was enclosed in a double barrelled reinforced 
concrete pressure conduit in 1944, in order to protect the low level 
areas of the city from floods caused by Park River run-off and Connecti- 
cut River backup. 

Since 1944, a large population increase has been experienced, n - 
suiting in the expansion of Hartford and its suburbs into former! 
settled and rural areas of the Park River Basin. New commercial areas, 
highways and industrial expansion have accompanied that growth, result- 
ing in destruction of natural storage and increased run-off characteristic 
in the basin. During the August 1955 record flood, serious flooding a:.d 
damage were experienced upstream of the 1944 conduit entrance in the 
city of Hartford. 

The proposed project entails an expansion of the present conduit 
system. Included are four sections of twin barrelled reinforced concrete 
conduit enclosing 3, 716 feet of the Park River and its north and south 
branches. These join conduit sections previously built by the Corp^ 
Engineers and the city of Hartford. In addition, a junction structure, 
and a headwall on the North Branch are proposed. An auxiliar. t onduit 
of circular cross section having a 22-foot inside diameter and a lei. 
of 9, 100 feet is proposed, to extend from the junction Btrui hire to 
Connecticut River. A pumping station is also proposed to pump lov. Level 
drainage into the conduit in times of flood. 

Authority for the project is granted ui lood Control 

1968. 

The benefit to cost ratio is 1.3. 

2. Environmental Setting Withoul tl ■• Projej t. Hartford t.il 
and the most populous city in the Stat ;>osed p 
ject is located entirely within the tfl. The environment is, there- 
fore, urban in character. As if 

■as, few vestiges of a natural er. 
ent present is typical of that In any large city, 

t, residences, business I '01 and 

| appurtenances which are c< m. 



The existing system of conduits passes through this urban environ- 
ment. Unfortunately, there are gaps in the system, with the result that 
water flows through deep concrete-lined open channels. That condition 
results in low aesthetic values and a high hazard probability, the latter 
evidenced by the deaths of seven children between 1942 and 1968. 

In addition to this, a 1, 600 foot open channel between the southern 
end under Capitol Avenue and Signourney Street and the northern end of 
the South Branch Conduit is presently endangering the stability of the 
high river bank within a public park and adjacent streets. Due to storm 
runoff and the attendant erosion, the settlement and bank slippage has 
become so serious that this park area has been closed to the public. 

3. The Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action . The impacts of 
the project on the natural environment would be negligible because the 
Park River is already partly enclosed in conduits, only minimal vestiges 
of a natural environment remain and no possibility exists for a reversal in 
the urbanization process and a restoration of the natural environment. The 
appearance of the pumping station and headwall may be aestheticly unpleas- 
ing, however, the connecting sections of conduit (3,716 feet) will improve 
the aesthetic quality of the area by eliminating the open channels. The 
auxiliary conduit would be installed almost completely under existing 
streets, hence the aesthetic quality of this area would not be impaired. 
The conduit network would have a beneficial effect on the water quality 

by cutting down on material added to the river from erosion in the areas 
of open channel. 

The project will also have beneficial effects on the living conditions of 
the area. The elimination of the hazardous open channels would allow more 
area to be available for development, as business, residential or recrea- 
tional areas. In particular is the park area mentioned earlier that had to 
be closed down because of the dangers created by an open channel. The in- 
creased prospects for business and recreation will have a beneficial effect 
on the local economy. 

Overall, the proposed network of conduits, together with the pumping 
station and headwall would minimize the danger of flooding in the low lying 
areas of Hartford, along with the destruction and hazards associated with 
flooding. The elimination of the open channels would result in an upgrading 
of the urban environment and the possibility of improving pedestrian traffic 
and aesthetics with the addition of walkways and benches over the new con- 
duits. Therefore, the net effect of the project to the existing environment 
would be beneficial. 

4. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided Should 
the Plan Be Implemented: No adverse environmental effects are known or 
anticipated if the project is implemented. 



5. Alternatives to the Proposed Actions: A thorough study of alterna- 
tive solutions to the Park River problem was made. Such alternative 
solutions were: 

a. Additional Reservoirs: The construction of flood control reser- 
voirs in upstream tributaries of the Park River was studied as a method 
of providing flood protection for the lower, built-up, flood-prone areas 
in Hartford. A comprehensive study of topographic maps, supplemented 
by field reconnaissance, revealed that the desirable sites have been uti- 
lized by the Department of Agriculture for floodwater-retarding structures, 
and that certain of the remaining sites considered were too far removed 
from the industrial and urban damage centers to provide any significant 
reduction in flood levels or to warrant further study. Other sites were 
abandoned when it was found that reservoir construction requiring acquisi- 
tion of high value residential properties would be more costly than alter- 
native flood control improvements in the lower basin. Thus this approach 
was eliminated. 

b. Modification of Existing Reservoirs . A review of the eight un- 
gated upstream detention reservoirs being constructed by the Department 
of Agriculture was made with a view towards introducing modifications 
which would allow them to be utilized for floodwater retention rather than 
only for retardation. It was found that the cost involved in accomplishing 
the necessary structural modifications would exceed the anticipated down- 
stream benefits. Thus, this approach was impractical. 

c. Diversion of Portion of South Branch, Park River. Two possible 
means of diverting the flood flows of the South Branch, Park River were 
investigated. Either plan would be more costly than providing conduit 
capacity in the lower basin, and would add to flood flows in adjoining 
basins. Thus, this approach was impractical. 

d. Channel Encroachment Lines. The State Water Resources Com- 
mission has established channel encroachment lines from the outlet of 
the Soil Conservation Reservoirs downstream to Albany Avenue on the 
North Branch, Park River. Plans for the establishment of similar lines 
are being considered for the South Branch along with channel modification. 
Establishment of these lines will be of value from a long range point of 
view by controlling the construction of new stru< tuns in flood-prone ar 

ereby reducing future- flood damages. Ho\ this pr I does 

not relieve present development from the imp dard projei t 

flood (SPF), which is defined as a e 1 used by tin- Corps of 

l to measure the flood . This SPF 

is b a basis for I Bign of the flood control projects. Based on 

\ j ;ir'r Rivi conditions, the -uld be 24, 900 cfs (cubit 

r second) at the Riv< The flood of re ord 

in August 1955 res ilted in a di 14, 000 i fs. 



e. Protection Plans . Plans to supplement the conduit work now 
under way were studied. They included those measures that would be 
effective in a standard project flood. Construction of walls and dikes 
along the banks and a pumping station to intercept drainage was one plan 
considered. This plan would approximately equal the cost of conduit con- 
struction without the added benefits to be derived from enclosing the 
river. However, conduit extension work alone would not be adequate 
with a standard project flood, due to the limited discharge capacity of 
the existing Park River conduit. The most practical solution to the prob- 
lem consists of completing the conduit extensions and adding an auxiliary 
conduit to provide protection from a standard project flood. Further 
extension of the North Branch conduit upstream of Farmington Avenue, 

as suggested by the Greater Hartford Flood Commission, was considered 
and found not economically justified at this time. 

f. No Development . Foregoing any development will not create any 
beneficial results to the environment, rather some adverse effects would 
result. First, deterioration and erosion would continue in the open channel 
areas, especially after heavy rainfalls. Second, the low lying areas of 
Hartford would not be afforded additional protection from floods. Third, 
prospects for further urban development in these areas would not be 
increased. 

All alternatives would entail greater disruption and destruction of 
the environment than the proposed plan. 

6. The Relationship Between Short Term Use of Man's Environment 
and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity 

The project would enhance the long term productivity of the present 
environment, in terms of the variety of development types possible, the 
prevention of major flood losses, the enhancement of the appearance of \ 
the area involved, and the elimination of hazardous conditions. Specifically 
a combination of the above factors would result in greater prospects for 
further development of the area involved for business, residential and 
recreational use. A case in point is the park area, previously mentioned 
that is being jeopardized by one of the open channels. Implementing the 
project would reopen this park area to the public for recreational purposes. 
The preservation of park areas, especially in a large city such as Hart- 
ford, is indeed a beneficial long term result. Another point is that the 
conduit system would improve long term water quality by reducing the 
amount of eroded material added to the river. All these factors would 
favor long term productivity as measured by sociologic and economic 
advantages. 



7. Any Irreversible Commitment of Resources Which Would be 
Involved in the Proposed Action : The natural resources once present 
in the project area were committed long ago to economic and urban 
development. The degree to which they were committed is evident in 
the fact that only vestiges of the natural environment remain. Conse- 
quently, the only resources that would be committed if the project be 
implemented would be the labor involved to complete the improvements. 

8. Coordination With Other Agencies: Coordination has been maintained 
throughout the course of the study with Federal, State and local agencies 
which have responsibilities or interests in the project. Included were 
the following: 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Federal Water Quality Administration 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 

State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture 

and Water Resources 
State of Connecticut Water Resources Commission 
Greater Hartford Flood Commission 

A draft of the environmental statements was furnished to the Bureau 
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Federal Water Quality Administration, 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, State of Connecticut Water Resources 
Commission, State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture and Natural 
Resources, Greater Hartford Flood Commission and the city of Hartford. 

This statement has been revised to include agency comments, the 
major points of which are summarized below: 

a. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife: 

Comment: The project will not have any adverse effects on fish 
and wildlife resources but will not offer any opportunity- to benefit these 
resources. 

b. Federal Water Quality Administration; 

Comment: The project will have no major adverse effects on the 

water quality. Long term beneficial results will b ized by thr re- 

duction in amount of bank slippage and subsequent erosion. 

c . Bureau ofOutdoor Recreation; 

Comment ; D\ of the envir< ent rail 

long term consideration and aesthetic i on id be enlarged, 

5 



Response : The statement has been expanded to include greater 
discussion of these areas. 

d. State of Connecticut. Water Resources Commission : 

Comment: The first paragraph under Item 3 on Page 3 is not 
easily understood. 

Response ; This section of the statement has been revised. 

Comment : In paragraph 5d, the statement 'Plans for the establish- 
ment of similar lines are being considered for the South Branch' 1 is 
partly true. For the most part, areas that do not have the encroachment 
lines are being considered for modification primarily consisting of channel 
modifications. 

Response : This additional information has been noted and is now 
Incorporated in the statement. 

Comment: The effect of the project on the sewerage system should 
be reviewed during the detailed design. 

e. State of Connecticut, Department of Agriculture and Natural 
Resources: 

Comment: Since the area was committed to urban development 
long ago, the conduits will do little to deteriorate the existing environment. 

f. Greater Hartford Flood Commission: 

Comment: We completely endorse your statement as expressed. 

Comment : At present, one of the open channels is endangering 
recreational areas in a public park. The extent of this danger has reached 
a point where this area in question had to be closed to the public as a 
safety precaution. 




z z z 

o o o 




few. 



UNITED STATES 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 
BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE 

u. s. post office and courthouse 

BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02109 



<r 



DEC 4 1970 



Division Engineer 

New England Division 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 

424 Trapelo Road 

Waltham, Massachusetts 

Dear Sir: 

Mr. Leslie's letter dated September 3, 1970 requested our comments or. 
a draft of the Environmental Statement for the Park Biver flood control 
local protection project in the city of Hartford, Hartford County, 
Connecticut. 

3a. Identify "the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action" 

The views of this Bureau should be included; viz, that this 
project will have no adverse effects upon fish and wildlife 
resources and it offers no opportunity to benefit these re- 
sources. 

3c . Identify "A l ternatives to the Proposed A ction" 



We understand that you plan to delete the dollar values re- 
lating to benefits foregone. We agree with this. 

At such time as your statement in final form reaches the Secretary of t 
Interior for comments, wo undoubtedly will be called upon to respond. Ex- 
perience has' shown that time allowed for such response may be a., little as 
3-4 days. If your policies and procedures will permit, we *ould appreci- 
ate receiving a draft of your statement as it is tent up thro -nnels. 
This would give us a little lead time and allow us to prepare • mean- 
ingful input to the Secretary 'i r ts. 

Sincerely youi , 



V 



: 



UNITED STATES 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION 
Northeast Fiction 
John F. Kennedy Federal Building 
Boston, Massachusetts 02203 

January 8,-1971 



Mr. John Urn. Leslie 

Chief, Engineering Division 

Corps of Engineers 

424 Trapelo Road 

Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 

Dear Mr. Leslie: 

With reference to your letter of September 3, 1970 transmitting environ- 
mental statements on 19 projects for comment, and to our letter of October 
20, 1970, there are enclosed our comments on an additional eight projects. 

Comments on the remaining projects will follow as soon as possible. 

FOR THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR: 



Sincerely yours. 

V ) 



-^Edward J. Conley 
Federal Activities Coordinate: 



Enclosures: 

Environmental Statement Comment - Westerly, Rhode Island 

" Danbury, Connecticut 



•t , it 

(t M 



Bristol Harbor, Rhode Island 
11 Hartford, Connecticut 



" M " Fitchburg, Massachusetts 



it ii 

ti it 

ii it 



Charles River Dam, Massachusetts 
" Fitchburg and Lunenburg, Massachusetts 
Beaver Brook, New Hampshire 



ENVIRONMStlTAL STAISMSNT CO:-2SjT 
HARTFORD, OONK2CTICUT 

PARX RIY2R 



The proposed project vill consist of the construction cf reinforced 
concreto conduit sections, a junction structure, a pur.pir.g station 
and a head vail. 

As the project does not involve a major watercourse or significantly 
alter those factors affecting water quality, no cajor adverse water 
quality change should be realized. The project will have a beneficial 
effect on water quality over the* long range by reducing the v a-ount of 
bank sliding and subsequent erosion. 







IN REPLY RC'tH TO: 



UNITED STATES 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION 

FEDERAL BUILDING 

1421 CHERRY STREET 

PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19102 

November 13, 1970 



Colonel Frank ?. Bane 

Division Engineer 

Hew England Division, Corps of Engineers' 

k2h Trapelo Road 

"•. T altham, Massachusetts 0215 4 

Dear Colonel 3ane : 

This will provide further response to Mr. John Leslie's letter of 
September 3> 1970. As requested, our letters of September 30 and 
October 20, 1970 and this letter provide cur comments on draft 
environmental statements transmitted by Mr. Leslie's letter for 
the following projects: 



1. Baker Brook 

2. Beaver Brook 

3. Bristol Harbor 
k. Charles River. 

5. Cliff tfalk 

6. Danbury 

7. Dickey-Lincoln School 
3. Fall River Harbor 

9. Ipsvich River 

10. Rew London 

11. I,'ooka£;ee 

12. North IT&shus River 

13. Park River 

14. Phillips 

15. Sasonville 



Fitchburg, Massachusetts 
Keene, tie'./ Hampshire 
Bristol Harbor, fthode Island 
Boston, Massachusetts 
Nevrport, Rhode Island 
Danbury j Connecticut 
St.. John River, Maine 
Rhode Island and Massachusetts 
Ipswich , Massachusetts 
New Lonion, Connect: 

tax, : isschusetti 

Pit t I'JLSSI tl 

Hartford, Connect ic 
',/es' burg, I 
Frr.- 



16. Stratford Stratford, Connecticut 

17. Trumbull Pond Trumbull, Connecticut 

18. Westerly Westerly, Rhode Island 

19. Whitnanville Whitmanville , Massachusetts 

We believe that each of the above draft environmental statements is 
lacking a full discussion of the human environmental- factors which are 
related to the proposals. In many cases it appears that significant natural 
or physical resources may be involved but no attempt has been made to 
present an analysis of plan formulation considerations which led to the 
recommended development scheme. The draft statements have recognized 
the existence of human, natural, and physical resources but we would 
recommend that your statements be expanded to include an evaluation of 
the potential impact of your proposals on such resources. 

We also believe your draft statements have failed to give satisfactory 
consideration to the overall long term consequences which could result 
from development. In many cases it would be necessary to project or 
estimate what these consequences might be but we believe such an 
assessment can be an important part of any environmental statement and 
recommend that this be done where appropriate. Your statement should 
include an analysis of current and expected future trends in affected 
land uses and the many related social and cultural factors which would 
be important to an understanding of the total impact of the project. 
Examples of such factors which you should consider in determining those 
which might be pertinent to the project are population growth, urbsn 
growth, transportation systems, resource development plans and industrial 
expansion. The presentation of your impact statement should be coordinated 
with current plan recommendations of the public agencies which have prepared 
plans for areas which would be affected by your prcpcsals. 

The draft statements are noticeably lacking in discussions of the aesthetic 
considerations related both to the proposed developments and to the planned 
operation of the projects. 

Generally, it appears to us that your approach to the preparation of these 
statements has been defensive in nature. We believe that acceptance of 
this approach is not consistent with the objectives pf national environmental 
legislation. We now have tools needed to assist us in the offering of 
preventive solutions to environmental problems. In each of your proposed - 
projects a public need is defined and serving this need appears to be 
your goal. Your estimates of the project economics is evidence in itself 
that serving this need is a valid objective. It is important to note, 
however, that other public needs may very likely be critical. The 



implementation of plan measures which were developed primarily cr. the 
"basis* of economic considerations could predetermine that even a remedial 
solution to an environmental problem recon-ized at some future tire would 
be ineffective, '.\ T e believe a more satisfactory result would be obtained 
if a positively oriented discussion were made of the many factors 
related to each project which you have determined to be a major Federal 
action. In like manner this approach should extend to an adequate 
treatment of a full range of project alternatives. 

In order that the above comments on your draft environmental stcter.ents 
might be better understood, we have prepared as examples more specific 
comments for selected individual projects, as follows : 

Saxonville Local Protection 

Recognition and discussion in this statement of the loss or 
modification of a natural stream environment through channelisation 
measures is recommended. It appears also that you have reco5nized a 
valid alternative to the recommended project, involving evacuation of 
the flood plain and supporting measures, but complete discussions of 
this and other alternatives are net made. 

Baker Brook Channel Improvement 

More detailed discussions are needed which relate- current lend 
uses to the problems of bonk erosion, stream pollution; low Stream flow 
and siltation of the channel which you have identified. If this is dcr.e, 
a more complete discussion of practicable alternatives could be presented 
end a clearer understanding of the potential impact of the project on 
outdoor recreation or aesthetic values could be mace apparent. 

Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island 

The description and discussions of the Impact which this project 
will have on the human environment should include detailed consideration 

of the relationship between this proposal and lend use or oven speee 
plans for the project area. There is no discussion of the closely 
related project which you refer to as "a land relocation project Bohedu] 
by the City of Fall. River to create Uo acres of waterfront property •" 

Your statement indicates that "there are several aspects of the 

project which could represent irreversible end Lr treble commit! 
of resources but the factors govemin these ar ible at this 
tine." We believe that such a finding without additional discussion as 

to the full ran^e of possible adverse affects Is not € 
intent of ?.L. 91-1?0. A fuller e 
effects should be nade, ond ire b 
alternatives and environmental e\ 



Bristol Harbor, Rhode Island 

The statement should include a more complete explanation end 
analysis of the effects on the natural environment of changing the 
circulation pattern in the harbor. An explanation of the studies made 
of the circulation patterns, a'nd the project effects on the circulation 
patterns, could enable a better understanding of the lac!: of knowledge 
with respect to any changes and also, perhaps, sore Idea of the probability 
that changes slight take place which could adversely effect the eesthetic 
or outdoor recreation values of .the harbor area. 

« 

We also believe some discussion is needed regaramg the commitments 
that would be necessary from other non-Federal public agencies in order 
that a pollution problem not be further magnified by the project. It 
would assist in understanding the possible consequences of the project 
if you would also discuss or suggest possible means to obtain any needed 
commitment, or alternatives to such commitment. 

Hurricane Protection, Stratford, Connecticut 

A major result from implementing this project would appear to be 
to make existing marsh lands near the project an attractive area for 
future land fill operations. The strong inducement which this would 
offer for the pursuit of economic gain could more than counterbalance 
an expressed environmental concern at the level at which decisions would 
be made. The results of your studies have caused you to 'advise local 
interests "to restrict future development in the marsh thus preserving 
the ecological value of the marsh." You suggest with or without the 
project the marsh will be lost to filling operations. This does not 
appear to us as a satisfactory end result of project planning and analysis. 
A fuller discussion of various alternatives and the possible consequences 
of each is necessary. It would appear that in each case, some recognition 
would be needed of the required permit procedures which must be adhered 
to prior to initiating filling activities. This project offers a good 
example of a "cause and effect" relationship over which good control of 
the result is possible if thorough study is made of the ramifications 
of the project prior to any final decision on a plan. 

Charles River Dam, Massachusetts 

The draft statement for this project provides another example of 
what we believe is a lack of consideration of the cumulative long term 
impact of the proposal. The project is presented as a first step measure 
to a "satisfactory solution to the flood problems in the Back 3ay Fens 
and on Muddy River." No effort is made to provide additional discussion 
of possible related proposals, each of which will have an identifiable 
impact on the environment. A similar observation relates to the proposal 
for construction of a highway viaduct crossing the Charles River. 



Dicker-!, in. ool^ School 3e.'ervoirs 



This draft statement, as well as others under discuss icr. 
tends to equate environmental impact to identified prcjcct bene 
In so doin^, the statements fail to provide a Ion- term assessm 
potential adverse and beneficial environmental impacts. Fresen 
it is, the statement fails to provide any consideration of cthe 
land uses in the area which would be influenced by the project, 
believe that a more quantitative description could be maile of t 
ir.pact of a project of this magnitude on a relatively untouched! 
Alternative plans •.■.•hic.h could serve the 'needs associated with t 
projects should be presentee alons vith a similar detailed desc 
analysis of the inpact '.rhich these measures would have en the e 



here, 


fits. 


-nt of 


ted as 


r pertinent 


"..'e 


he total 


area. 


he s e 


riotive 


r.virenmer.t . 



We have prepared these cements on the basis of the information provided 
in your draft environmental statements. Detailed studies of your 
nroposals or field reviews of the project areas have not been conducted. 



Ue are pleased to have had the opportunity to provide this t< 
assistance to you and we hope our comments '.rill be useful as 
further develop your environmental statements. 



nberely yours , 




^/^w^^h 



Rolland 3. K?ndlev 
Regional Director 





STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION 

State Office Building o Hartford, Connecticut 06115 
May 19, 1971 

Division Engineer 

Department of the Army 

Hew England Division, Corps of Engineers 

M2tJ Trapelo Road 

•faltham, Massachusetts 02154 

Dear Sir: 

Reference is made to your Draft of Environmental Statement con- 
cerning the Park River Conduit, Hartford, Connecticut dated March 26, 
1971. We have reviewed the draft statement and suggest the following 
changes or corrections. 

The first Paragraph under Item 3 on Page 3 is not easily under- 
stood and in any case seems to serve little purpose and v.»e suggest 
that it be omitted. The following paragraphs amply cover the subject 
of Item 3. 

In Paragraph 5d, certain statements relating to the channel 
encroachment line program as applied to the Park River Watershed are 
' ide. The statement in the middle of the paragraph which reads, 
"Plans for the establishment of similar lines are being considered for 
the South Branch.", is only partly correct. It is also true that 
lines have been established along certain tributaries of the South 
Branch including a total milage of approximately IS. 75 miles of river. 
For the most part those areas in which lines have not been establ 
include reaches of river which are under consideration for modification 
by the installation of flood control improvements consisting prir.cip 
of channel modifications. 

There is reason to be concerned with the effect of the project on 
the Metropolitan District Commission sewerage system, but such can | 
be assessed on the basis of available data. It is felt that the need 
for review will be appropriately accomplished during detailed des I 

We trust that these remarks will be of value to you in reaching 
your final decision as to the composition of the Environmental Sta'. 

Very trulv your 

l ' . Pe 1 1 

D Lv ■ ion En. 

v; • 

CvJP:d 






Jim\ T. SIACPCN ALD 



sr.-ir£ of cox x ecticlt 

D&.4KT.UEXT OF ACSJCLLTCRe 

ASD SATL-RAL KESOl RCE> 

stati. office tu*c. H.tr.rro?.? •-;.•« 



April 20, 1971 



•Mr. John W. Leslie 
Chief, Engineering Division 
Department of the Army 
New England Division, 
Corps of Engineers 
424 Trapelo Road 
Waltham, Massachusetts 



Dear Mr. Leslie 



:-:eded- 



We have reviewed the craft of the 
Environmental Statement for zb.e Park 
River Conduit in Hartford, Connecticut 
which you submitted to r.e with your 
letter of March 26, 1971. 

We wish to advise you that ve cor.cu: 
with your statement. The 2a rk ?.iver in 
the area of the proposed conduit was lor. ; 
ago committed to urban development and i; 
of little or no value to fish cr game. 
The proposed conduit will do liztle or 
nothing to deteriorate the environment. 

Sincerely yours, 

John 7. Macdonald 
Commissioner 



JTM:ksm 



I 



„'uk>ntn 

3AR0LD F. KEITH 
IEOBCEB. KINS ELLA 
jAUES V.MURRAY 
|0ni* C. PARSON'S 
iWARDriNNEY 
LTOKEL H.PUTNAM 
fILLIAM J. RETNOLDS 



GREATER HARTFORD FLOOD COMMISSION 

830 MAIN STREET 
HARTTORD, CONNECTICUT 00103 

051 ICIIIGI 



April 2, 1971 



HAROLD F.KEH II 

Chcirmam 

CCORCE B ICIVSCLLA 
V'lcr Ck*tn*+n 

H WARDPJ.WTV 

Stttrllry 

ctoncK F.. lrrrr.sER 

Di'CCtfit 

alexander a coldfaj 
PwmH 

Mr. John Wm. Leslie, Chief 
Engineering Division 
Department of the Army 

New England Division, Corps of Engineers 
l|2l+ Trapelo Road 
Waltham, Massachusetts 0215^ 

Dear Mr. Leslie: 

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 26, IT/1 
and the enclosed "two draft copies of the environmental statement 
for the Park River Conduit Project." 

Cur review , of your statement's assessment of the potential 
environmental impacts of our project results In our complete en- 
dorsement of the statement as expressed. 

By way of comment on Paragraph 2 - "Environmental Setting 
Without the Project", may we point out that one cap in the ■ 
conduit system - the section between the south end of the conduit 
under Capitol Avenue and Sigourney Street and the north 
the South Branch Conduit, north of Park Street - appro 
1600 lineal feet of open Park River channel Is presently • : ing 
the stability of the high river bank within a public p 
streets adjacent thereto. Storm runoff through this 1, 

and attendant erosion have caused settlement and ban): r li 
serious that this whole park area has been closed to th° public. 

Closure by conduit of this particular gap will B I this 
high bank, prevent further hazardous slides', and permit or\ 
of the public park area and facilities by the development of I 

conduit right-of-way. 

May we hope that submission of this envi 
"or the Park River Conduit Project will provid 
for the approval of this project ■ 

Very truly VOUI 



. 






BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 05994 368 6